kreitlow, burton w.; kreitlow, doris j. external ...evaluation team - dr. burton w. kreitlow....
TRANSCRIPT
ED 116 020
DOCUNENT BEMIRE
95 CZ 005 931
AUTHOR Kreitlow, Burton W.; Kreitlow, Doris J.TITLE External Evaluation of Pfoject ACT.INSTITUTION Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins. Dept. of
Education.SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW), Washington,,D.C.PUB DATE Jun 75NOTE 113p.; For related documents, see CE 005 932; For the'
1974 External Evaluation, see CE 005 615
EDRS PRICE MF-$O.76 HC-$5.70 Plus PostageDESCRIPTORS *Adult Educators; Educational Programs; *Evaluation
Methods; Organizational Development; *ProgramAdministration; Program Effectiveness; *ProgramEvaluation; Regional Programs; *Staff Improvement;Systems Development
IDENTIFIERS *Project ACT; Region 8
ABSTRACTThird party evaluation of Project ACT (Adult
Competency Training), a United States Office of Education staffdevelopment project in Region 8, has examined the achievement of theproject's goal of developing a self-generating and self-supportingadult staff development system, thus helping adult educators tobecome, better prepared to serve their clients. The evaluation designincludes an examination of internal documents and individualinterviews with policy board members, administrators, supervisors,and participants. Findings are arranged under four headings,discussing: (1) documents, examining all project documents from1973 -75 in terms of objectives, structure, and achievements; (2)
policy board, examining perceptions'of role, outcomes, judgments,objectives, evidence, and decision making; C administrators andsupervisors, listing interview questions and responses; and (4) otherfindings, including data on advisory boards, questionnaires, staffperceptions, and follow-up on previous recommendations. A numeratedsummary of findings includes the following statements: the purposeand objectives of the project hate remained constant; very littlechange has occurred in Board member perceptions; administrators andsupervisors consistently rate the project highly; and there is noconsistency in advisory board organization throughout Region 8.Eleven tables supplement the ,discussion. (LH)
***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished . *
materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *
* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *
* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *
* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. ************************************************************************
U S,,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE Of
EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW ON OPINIONSSTRTED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ,EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF PROJECT ACT*
Evaluation Team - Dr. Burton W. KreitlowUniversity of Wisconsin (Madison)
- Mrs. Doris J. KreitlowAABE Consultants(Mazomanie, Wisconsin)
June 1975
*Project ACT is.a United States Office of Education Staff DevelopmentProject in Region VIII
2
PROJECT ACT
The work presented or reported herein was performed pursuant to a grantwith the U. S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education andWelfare. However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyreflect the position or policy of the U.. S. Office of Education and noofficial endorsement by the U. S. Office of Education should beinferred.
Colorado State University does not discriminate on the basis of race,color, religitn, national origin, or sex. The University complies withthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, related Executive Orders 11246 and 11375,and all civil rights laws of the State of Colorado. Accordingly, equalopportunity for employment and admission shall be extended to all personsand the University shall promote equal opportunity and treatment througha positive and continuing affirmative action program.
Preface0
The 1974 External Evaluation of Project ACT was direct. This
one will alsp be.
As an end of project evaluation it is designed to communicate
to all who shared.in Project ACT, including the federal and state
authorities and taxpayers whose funds were used to complete the
project.
Cooperation in, securing data for this-report was exceptional -
Policy Board, staff, participants and administrators or supervisors
of the participants..
Thirty-seven indiyidual interviews were conducted, several
group interviews were held (18 persons), documents and records were
reviewed. The evaluator integrated data from these sources in a
variety of ways and.attempted to report them as objectively as
possible.
The evaluators made every attempt not to editorialize yet we
are certain some of our own beliefs and values got through.
Although we apologize for that, we. hope you, the reader, do your
own editorializing. We hope you ?stew".over some of the findings,
argue with the conclusions, damn our hypotheses if you wish, but
please take the heed for and potential of staff development, in
Region VIII seriously.
Burton W. KreitlowDoris J. Kreitlow
11
A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
a
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Tables
SECTION,
I INTRODUCTION
II THE EVALUATION DESIGN
III THE FINDINGS
.Part A - The Extent to Which DocumentsSupported Objectives
O
Page
iii
v
1
3
6
7
Initial proposal 9
Project ACT Fiscal Year 1973 11
Prpject ACT Fiscal Year 1974 14Project ACT Fiscal Year 1975 20Summary of changes. and consistencies 28
Part B - Policy Board 32no.
Perceived role position 1974 and 1975 32
Perception of project outcomes 1974°and 1975 35
Perception of project outcomes for the state 37
Policy Board judgments z,n ITPs and RRTs 39
Hard evidence in support of ACT 43'Elimination of RRTs 44.
Consistencles_and changes in objectives1973-1975 , 46
Perception of-Board members - key decisions 48 ,
Part C - Direct Outcomes of the Project asPerceived by Educators One Step Removed 51
111
I
ti
b
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTIONPage
Part D - Other Ffhdings 67
Advisory Boards 68
Thoughts of ITPs and RRTs 72
Perceptions of ACT staff 80
Supplemental fundingFollow-up on recommpndations 86
IV SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, HYPOTHESES
AND WHAT CAN BE 92
Summary of findings 93
Conclqsions. 101
Hypotheses needing further study 4 .- 103",
What can be 106
'83
Va.
iv
TABLE
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1 PERCEIVED ROLE POSITION 34
2 PERCEIVED PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR THE REGION 36
3 PERCEIVED PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR THE STATE 38
4 COMPARISON OF VALUES ITP AND, RRT IN CARRYINGOUT,OBJECTIVES
5 COMPARISON OF VALUESOF THE RR TEAMS TO THOSEADULT EDUCATORS PARTICIPATING IN EACH AS-JUDGED BY THE POLICY BOARD
40
40
6 COMPARISON OF VALUES OF THE RR TEAMS TO THEULTIMATE CONSUMER.OF THE ADULT EDUCATORSCOMPETENCY' AS JUDGED BY THE POLICY BOARD 41
7 DAYS PER YEAR TO HELP IN OTHER STATES 64
RESPONSES OF POLICY BOARD MEMBERS REGARDINGOTHER BOARDS 70
9 RESPONSES ON VALUE OF ITPs AND RRTs 73
10 FISCAL YEAR 1973 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING 84
11 FISCAL YtAR1974,SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING 85
V
k7
June 19.75
VTERNAL EVALUATION OF PROJECT ACT
Section I Introductionto
The purposes of Project ACT as identified in the January 15,
1974 project application were to develop:
A. An operational six -state consortium for Adult. Staff
Development (ASD)
B. Fully functional and systematic on-going regional and
state ASD planning and programming operations
C. Afflulti-:dimensional training capability
D. 'Individualized Training Programs - Models -
Processes and Training Packages - Units - Modules
E. A systemized Regional Resource and Distribution Center
of Training Materials, Instructional Aids, Lists of
Training Sites, and Consultants, etc.
The main thrust Of the external evaluation as identified in the
Project ACT Three Year Plan (October 31, 19,3) was to "conduct an
overall review of the Project with special attention given to progress
madeon development of a regional system." This is a continuation of
the 1974 evaluatiop thrust which had as its focus "that of appraising'
the degree to which Project operations and activities have been and
continued to be consistent ith the ultimate aim of.: the development
of a self-generating and self- supporting Adult Staff DevelpOrgnt system.
for HEW Region VIII, which has the potentfal for persistence beyond
Fy. 1975."
8
.
24
These two statements were used as a guide for the evaluation con- 4
ducted and reported here. In scope this evaluation has as its concern
the achievement of the Project's basic purposes over a three year
-
Period. The evaluation was carried out by careful attention to
. project documents, participants in the project and to perceptions of
professional educators one step removed from project participants.o
4This report.bas four sections, Section I identifies the purposes
of the evaluation. Section II describes the evaluation design.
Section III presents the findings and Section IV summarizes the
findings, presents the conclusiun:, identifies hypotheses and
.suggests what can be.
r
It
of
%.!
Section II The Evaluation Design
G
3
Intrial,documents prepared by Project ACT staff and by Task rordes, :.i.including the minutes of Policy Board Meetings over the three year period.
.
of the 'Project pere'examined to determine consistency or variations ii' --
objectives and prograM.
Individual interviews were conducted in March 1975 with all
8thirteen (13) members,of,the Project ACT. Policy. Board. Eleven were inter=
.viewed in Deriver during a Region,VIII State Director's meeting or during
the folloWilig Policy Board meeting March 4 through 6, 1975 and two who
were not in attendance were interviewed by telephone the following week.
Thee- focus of these interviews was to gather data,to be compared to their
1974.responses as to Board ',temper roles, xegional outcomes and state
outcomes of'the Project.. jrcadaition, the judgment oft Board members
was gathered. as to the value of Individual Training Programs (ITPs) and
Regional Resource Teams (RRTs) in carrying out Project ACT objectiiies,
.
in the value to the individual participants'and in the value to the
adult student in the participants' local program. Evidence wias also
gathered about the availability of the Board's hard evidence on-the
value of ITPs and RRTs, reasons why RRTs were-eliminated fronifollow -d
plans for the Project, consistencies and changes in objectives as the
Board per6ived them, responsibilities for key decisions and data on
State Strategy Boards and LocallSounding Boards in each state.-,
Interviews' were conducted by phone with the 'administrators or
supervisors of twenty-foUr participants inthe project. Four were
e.
4
selected from each of the six states. The selection of participants
was made by the use of a table of random numbers and selection made
from the total list of participants in each state who Were involved in
Project ACT as members of RRTs and engaged in an Individual Training4 y
'Program. A total sample of twenty-four was selected from a population
of fifty-three. The intent of the interviews was to gather information
as to participant 'change in ability, self-directedness, self-confidence,
A
1
motivations for 'professional imprOvement and professional status.N
A judgment as to whether the participant, through Project ACT
activities was better able to help adult students and share ACT
materials with other-staff was sought. A determination was made
as to the knowledge the administrator o) supervisor of the partici-.
pant had of Project ACT. Other items gathered from administrators
dealt with the value of out -of -state training for the participant,
complaints about the Project, willingness to pay a users fee for
Project materials (PARIS), time off the job, knowledge of and reaction
to the( Project; mostmeaningful aspects to the participants and days'
'participants could be made available for teaching others.
Twenty-two of the twenty-four persons interviewed had had no
formal connection.with Rroject ACT, Of the two who had, one was a
%participant andione was employed as a professional staff person on
the Projto5t.,
Other materials examined dealt with the development of State.1%
,titrertegy Boards and Local Sounding Boards, perceptions of a'selected
. sample of ITP participants and RRT Members, perceptions of AtT:staff,
`supplemental funding provided.tn Fy '73 and Fy '74 and follow-up
actions taken 0 a result of the 1974 externalrevaluation.
:i
5
During interviews' with Policy Board, administrators or supervisors
of participants, selected ITP and RRT participants andsstaff, 'notes
and taperedofdings were made of all open-end questionsTwo-inter----
viewees chose not to have the interview recorded. Scaled data
gathered were of two types: O
1. The Cantril type self-anchoring scale used in the 1974
evaluation was used to gather comparative data from
Policy'Board members.
2. A Likert type scale with a 'range of from zero to ten was
adjusted to make comparisons between values the Policy
---
Board ascribed-to ITPs and RRTs. This"s-nimed a Balance
Sca3e.
Open-end data were analyzed using'notes
data were tabulated and reported in tables.,
of clustering wef.e used.
and recordings. Scaled
Means, ranges and points
When the scope of factual data was limited it was reported directly
in the narrative.
The narrative and statistical data were usedto describe what is;
to show what was, to considef what might have been and to suggest what
could still be., The data in this evaluation are, purposefully inter-
preted frqm a*stance external to USOE Region VIII; with'a concern for
. effective staff .development programs and for efficient and effective
use of federal dollars.
12
Section III The Findings
6
Part A in Section III is a report on the consistency of objectives'
and program from 1973 through 1975 as determined from Project documents
and records. Part B of the Findings relate specifically to the
responses of the Policy Board in both 1974, and 1975. Part C is an
analysis of data from administrators and supervisors of*Project ACT
participants and Part D reports on data from a variety of other
sources.
1I3
o
7
Part A - The Extent to Which Internal DocumentsOf Project ACT FY 1973-1975 SupportedThe Project Objectives
A federal project begins with a problem and a proposed way of
solving that problem. It begins with the creative human abilities
of one individual or of several individuals, but as it develops and
grows the interaction qf others with the efforts of the original
planners begin to give the solution the shape and substance it will
ultimately attain.__
'So it has been with Project ACT. In this overview of internal
documents from its proposal by Dr. James Kincaid in November of 1971
to the last meeting of the Policy Board in March of 1975 the shaping
of this problem solution has shown modific.ation and change which came
as .a result of the interaction of Staff, Policy Bbard, Participants,
Consultants, and Evaluators.
The internal documents reviewed in this overview were:
"The Region VIII Adult Competency Training Project(Project ACT) Proposal,
Annual Reports, FYs 1973, 1974
Mid Year Reportt July 1973-December 1973;July 1974-December 1974
Minutes of Policy Board Meetings
Interhal Evaluations
O
Task Force. Reports
Needs Assessment Survey
Position Papers
Other Selected Documents and Correspondence
14
"These documents were reviewed to find consistencies and flex-
ibility in Project ACT development in three areas--Objectives,
Structure, and Achievement. The findings-were placed in sequential
order: Proposal, FY 1973, FY 1974, FY 1975. Changes or consistencies
occuring in objectives, structure, and achievement are noted in a
Summary.
15
!Objectives'
Initial Qro osal for a Region VIII Adult Com etenc Trainin' Pro ect
(Project ACT)
The purpose was to build do integrated system of adult
education staff training which? ti d provide the "kind, quality, and
number of adult educatjon-persbnnel needed to operate a program of
first quality in everYstate-in Region VIII."
A corollary aim was the.building of a state supported staff
-training system which would operate without major outside funding in
institutions of higher learning.
The primary purpose was to generate and develop a six-state,
consortium arrangement for adult_educator staff development and
training under the direction and supervision of a Regional Project
Policy Board.
'Structure! The thirteen member Policy Board was to be composed of a
9
State Director of Adult Education and a.Representative of an Institu-
tion of Higher Education from each of the-six states, and also the
Region VIII Program' Officer.
Spending of Project funds 14as to be the prerogative of the Policy
Board. The Board was also to have the responsibility of making a needs
assessment in each state, of initiating and implementing the Project
ACT program, and of evaluating that program.
The'Prime Contractor was to be Colorado State University which
would be the location of Administrative Headquarters; Dr. James
Kincaid was to give 50% of his time to ACT as Project Director.
113
Vichievementsj
Thd framework and the sequential development of Project ACT was
presented visually in the Proposal as follows:
4Establish
Headquarters.Staff-July '72
IEstablish ProjectPolicy Board
Establish InstitutionalTrainers In Each State(Instit. of Higher Ed.)
1-->
10
Develop Criteria forA Regional TrainingSystem
Conduct Antecedentand Needs Assessments
Phase 1, October 1972 to June 1973. Begin development of
a Regional Consortium Training System for:
Teacher and Aide Training ProgramLevel 1 (Regional)Level 2 (State)Level 3 (Local and Individual)
Local Program Administrators (second priority)at three levels
Phase 2, July 1973 to June 1974: Continue the above
Pre-service and Inservice Training Programs, and in addition begin:'
Counselor and Program Specialist Training,Programs at three levels
Possible in-state; inservice training atLevels 2 and 3
Phase 3, July 1974 to June 1975. Continue the above
teacher, Aide, Administrator, Counselor, and PrograM Specialist Pro-,
grams and add:
State Administrative and Supervisory Staff,and Institutional Trainer Training Programsat all three Tevets
17
Project ACT Fiscal Year 1973
lObjecti vest The establishment of a regional consortium organization
11
to implement adult staff development programs within the six states
and Region VIII on a continuing basis. To establish a multi-
dimensional trainer capability for the states and the region. Also
to develop training units -- materials and experiences. These were
the basic purposes of the Project.
Objectives were described as encompassing three areas:
Geographic--On the basis of continual needs assessment both
in the states and in the region, to develop an integrative adult com-
petency training system which would meet the needs both of the entire
region and the unique .needs of the states.
Priorities--To provide these training experiences for adult
education personnel in Adult Basic Education (elementary and secondary)
and in,General Adult Education. To aid in the development of partici-.
pant leadership competencies. in administration and management, inter-
personal relationships, career development for adult learners through
counseling, instructional methodology and materials, and program and
curriculum development.
"Client-Types"--Provide training for local administrators and
supervisors, teachers and aides, counselors, program specialists, state
administrative and supervisory staff, and trainers of adults.
[Structure] The Prime Grantee became Colorado State University, and
the Director, James Kincaid, 50% time. The staff with the exception
12
of the secretary were all part time employees--Virginia Ricard, 50%;
one staff member 30%; and Dr. Douglas Sjogren, internal evaluator
Ti10 %. e staff was housed at CSU.
The Consortium approach began with the organization of the
Policy Board in July 1972. The first chairman was Glenn Jensen,
)rofessor of Adult Education, University of klyoming. The Policy
Board assumed the power of the purse and the responsibility of
"creating the framework of criteria for the Regional Adult Staff.
Training System." The Board also assumed Supervisory and evalua-
tory responsibilities for the Project. Policy Board members agreed
to the concepts of.State Strategy and State Local Sounding Boards
with each state to exercise the option of how these boards should
be developed and staffed. The responsibility was placed upon each
-state to appoint its board members and to get the boards into opera-
tion.. The Board also adopted guidelines for State SUpplemental-
Funding for the Project.
A basic change from the Proposal Plan was made when six
tutional Training Positions" (one in each of the participating states
institutions of higher learning) were dropped due to "funding diffi-
culties." In place of these it was determined that two full time
program coordinators would be-added to the Grantee Staff thus
essentially centralizing the training effort which then emerged as
the Individualized Training Program concept (ITP),
By January 1973 each state had named four or five participant
trainees for a total number of twenty-five. Internal evaluator
Sjogren had, provided baseline information on adult staff development
19.
in the region and'in the participating states. Leadership training
in adult education had been identified by the Policy Board as the
focus for the training effort, and participants were chosen with
leadership qualities in mind.
'Achievements'
13
Consortium organization was establiished and some commit-
ment was made to the sharing of resources and personnel.
A basic change in the structure brought about a new and alter-
native form of adult education staff training, the Individualized
Training Program.
States subcontracted to produce "training package modules" ;
which would have region-wide application, and to conduct training
activtttes-within-the-state with-Project ACT funding support:-
-Twenty-five.participants began ITPs.
Expansion and systematizing of-training materials and experiences
in a resource center was begun at C.S.U.
The first regional training workshop was held in June of 1973 with
f twenty-three of the trainee participants.
JA questionnaire was administered at the workshop to ITP trainees.
An open-ended question asking what specific benefits had been received
from ACT participation strongly suppOrted the regional concept with a
large'majority of trainees identifying interaction with other adult
educators in the region as an important benefit of the Project. This
questionnaire was a part of "the first internal evaluation and was
received by the Policy Board at the close of the first year.
20
{Objectives(
Project ACT Fiscal Year 1974
14
The stated purpose of ache Project was to serve as a catalyst
in Region VIII for a self-sustaining Regional Adult Staff Development
System by means of a regional consortium organization; by developing
a multi-dimensional trainer capability for states and region; and by
producing an extensive array of training units.
Six specific objectives were stated:,
1. To facilitate a continued Region VIII Consortium Organi-zation through a Regional Policy Board, State StrategyBoards, and Local Sounding Boards in a vertically linkedsystem:
2. Evolve state adult staff develOpment plans within the con-sortium framework providing for state,and regional needs.
3. Seek increased involvement. by institutions, groups, andindividuals in planning and implementing adult educationtraining programs.
4. PrOvide continued emphasis on "local adult educationleadership'' through individualized, competency-basedtraining programs.
5. Facilitate development of Regional Resource Teams composedof Project ACT trainees to spread adult education trainingexperiences within Region VIII.
6. Develop training modules, packages, and activities tomeet competency needs of adult education personnel inRegion VIII.
'Structure{ The general structure of Project ACT had emerged by the
start of this fiscal year. It was the Policy Board, Project Staff,
and Trainee Participants.' The Chairman of the Policy Board in this
period was George DeBow State Director of Adult Education, South
Dakota. The illness of Dr. Kincaid placed Dr. Blome
a
21.3
15'
in the position of Acting Director for several months. Sheila
Schroeder and Virginia Ricard became full time staff members as
program coordinators. Burton W. Kreitlow was named external
evaluator.
PARIS, Project ACT Resource Information System, housed at
C.S.U. was organized to identify and develop resources foravail7
ability for the participating states and for the ,region.
Two task forces joined the framework of personnel working on
Project ACT:
Task Force A was convened composed of Burton W. Kreitlow,
Professor of Adult Education, University of Wisconsin, chairman;
Dick Rowles and Earl Ringo of the Policy Board; and Gary Eyre,
Executive Director of the National Advisory Council on Adult
Education. This group was given the task of reviewing program
efforts to date (October 1974) in relation to goals, purposes,
policies, and ,budget. Their key recommendation was that Regional
Resource Teams be formed in order to re-invest the products of
adult staff development being carried out through ITP trainees.
This would achieve-a multiplier effect. These Teams Made up of
Project ACT ITP trainees would pe,utilized to aid in staff development
in all statet\within the region. This recommendation was implemented
by the Policy Board and the Project Staff and, fiye-Regional ResourceAy
Teams were formed in five different, expertise areas of adult competency
staff.development.
Task Force B with Policy Board Member, Alton Hadlock, University,
of Utah, Chairman and with two other POlicy Board members, Roy Minnis,.
16
USOE, Regional Program Officer, and John Brennan, State Director of
Adult Education, Colorado, and Virginia Rtcard of-the Project Staff,
as members, was appointed to make recommendations on the composition
and representation of the Policy Board. The concern was whether the
structure of the Board had sufficient breadth and.power to assure
continuance of the project once federal funding ceased. The recom-,
mendations of this Task Force were.:
1. That the Board reaffirm it's primary function as policymaker for Project ACT.
2. That the Board be strengthened by the addition of the chiefstate school officer, and also by a representative of oneor more teacher training institutions in each state withauthority to,m#t.commitmen.ts to the Project.
3. That Policy Board members also serve,as members of theirState Strategy Boardsin order to assure effective com-munication state-wide and regionally.
Although formally accepted by the Policy Board, these recommenda-
tions were not implemented.
Dr. Paul Butterfield was hired to work with the six states to
refine state staff development plans.
Communication through a regional newsletter, The Activator, was
begun.
The vertical linkages in the regional framework made some progress.
Montana, South Dakota, and Colorado had active Boards at state level.
(Strategy Boards) and Montana and South Dakota were beginning to
implement the Local.Sounding Board concept.
!Achievements! (In terms of progress toward above objectives)
1. Consortium-Organization--The Policy Board Members were in
frequent communication and participated in five, two day Board sessions
23
17'
during the fiscal year. The Board appointed two task forces and
received their reports. The Board received the first external evalu- ,
ation of the project, and the second internal evaluation.
2. State and Regional Adult Staff. Development Plans--Dr. Paul
Butterfield was given specific direction by the Board to do an adult
educator needs assessment survey in the states and the region. A
method of assessing needs utilizing Participant Data Sheets to provide
a data bank of information was also devised.
Resources for the region were identified. (These included
training sites, and consultarits as well as materials-.) A publication .
"Leadership Variations in Colorado For Internship Learning Experiences"
was written -by Project ACT staff identifying a variety of training
experiences available to trainees.
Thirty-six new trainee participants, were added for a total of
sixty persons involved in the ITPt.
The need to. further involve A variety of institutions and agencies
to insure the continuance of the staff development program after the
end of federal funding, was identified. A:conferericeof individuals
representing these institutions and agencies was planned, but had to
be dropped. (Ultimately, Paul Butterfield and, Roy Minnis took over
the task of contacting many of these individuals.)
3. Individualized Training Programs--The ITPs were finalized
'for the first twenty-four pirticipants (one had dropped out). The
Critical Path Method of identifying and sequencing the tasks in the
training programs' was perfected with the result that the process
could be speeded up. The entire, number of thirty=six ITPs for new
2.4 .
18
participants were planned in qs days. Based on the experiences of
the first group, .the newJTPs were planned'in two phases, with time
schedules, and with an opportunity for assessment at midpoint. Thus
much refinement ofthe innovative ITP system occurred during the year,
and the communication system between staff and trainees developed
even further than it had the previous year.
4. Regional Resciurce Teams--The assignmelit of Project ACT
Trainees tp Regional Resource Teams was accomplished after personal.
staff conferences with each individual. The five original teams
were: Interpersonal Cominurri-cattonsT-Admiiri-s-trati-an-In- Adult Educe--
tion, Community -Wide PrograMmin9 in Adult Education, Individualized
Approaches'to Instruction, Recruitment and Retention.
With the assignment of thirty -six new Project ACT Trainees to
Resource Teams, three more teams were added. Some new trainees were'
assigned to the-live original RRTs. The added teams were Media and
the Adult Eficator, Training in Adult Education, and Adult Teaching
and Learhing.
Thus there were eight teams with from four to thirteen members
each. First team presentation's were made at the March 1974 Confer-
ence, an additional seven presentations With adult educators through-
out the Region were made before the close of the fiscal year. In
actual practice the developmental process of the Regional Resource
Teams went forward concurrently with their presentations.
5. Training Module Development-.-The staff established guide-.
lines for module develop.meit, but actualization of this objective
was not extensively carried out during this year.
19
One member of the Regional Resource Team in Individualized
Approaches to Instruction developed a series of modules on teaching
English as a second language.
Summarizing the accomplishments of the second Year, Internal
Evaluator, Douglas Sjogren listed the following:4
a. The staff developed a model for a regional adult staffdevelopment system "which allows for regional coordinatio.nand at the same time accomodates unique state and localneeds.'
b. The Policy Board'adopted the Task Force (B) report onrestructuring the Policy Board. (Note, adopted, notimplemented.)
c. A resource center and system was developed by the staff.
d. A "pool of ta1ent" was identified, trained, and thenutilized through Regional Resource-Teams.
e. A procedure for monitoring. adult educat'1on trainingactivities was stated.
10.
r
V+
ti
20
Project ACT Fiscal Year 1975
Pearia:4In his Position Paper, October 1974, "Regional Resource
Team Liaison: Perspectives and Recommendations," DrdAincaid restated
the following. "Project ACT,in its three-year program of operations,
is designed to serve as the catalyst in Region VIII for the development
of a self-sustainingiRegional Adult Staff DevelopMent System. Essential
to the achievement of that purpose is the establishment of:"
"A'Reoional Consortium Organization to achieve effective, repre-sentative decision making. . ."
"A multi-dimensional trainer capability state-by-state and forthe region as a whole."
"fin extensive array of training units--materials, modules, etc.--that can be variously packaged to meet adult education competencyneeds."
It may 'be assumed that the specific pjectiyes of th- previ(ous
year were ongoing in the last year of the project. In addition, the
immediate and pressing objective of establishing an "on-going,"self-
sustaining approach to the training of adult educators" was identified
by Robert Clark, internal evaluator, as the Project's prime objective
to be kept in mind in the final year of federal funding.
Structure) With a few Changes of personnel, the original structure and
composition of the Policy Board remained the same during this fiscal
year. Dean Earl Ringo, Montana State University, was third year chair-
man.
The framework of the staff altered during the 1975 year with the
director's time cUt to 25% and with the addition of David Haggerty,
21
a three-fourths time Research Assistant for administration and internal
evaluation, a full -time Research Associate, Annette Ensley in charge of
Module'Development, and a three-fourths time Training Associate,
Dr. John C. Snider for a period of six months.
The concept,of Regional Resource Team Liaison (linkage Of.each
Resource Team with a staff member of an institution of higher education,
or with a social agency or organization to "inhance the potential for
longevity of the team activity") was approved by the Policy Board.
The first group of Project ACT trainees had completed their ITPs
and the second group completed theirs by April 1975. Extensive work with
Resource Teams including developmental and training ses4ions,'Module
development, and a conference on the consultative process 'S'carried
on with staff and consultants. With the Policy Board's decisidn in
December to discontinue support of the RRTs effective June 30, 1975, an
Interim Committee of Dale Medearis (consultant), Carlin Good, participant,
Paul Butterfield, participant and consultant and Terry Brattin, partici-.
pant formed to plan and propose establishment of a self-sustaining adult
staff development orgahization. At a conference of aRTs, ITPs,,Staff,
and Policy Board Members and'several other interested parties held in
May, 1975, this organization became a reality.a
Task Force C was appointed in October 1974 by the Policy Board to
develop alternative strategies for continuance of the multi-state adult
staff development system in Region VIII in Fiscal Year 1976 and beyond.
Members of the Task Force were: Earl Ringo and John Brennan of the
Policy Board, James Kincaid and Sheila Schroeder of Project ACT Staff,
and David Haggerty, Research Assistant, Project ACT. The Task Force
28,
22
presented an extensive report which included a conceptualized model
(a portion of which is shown below) of the adult education staff
development system devised by Project ACT, with recommendations for
the continuance of each of the component parts, as well as a cost
estimate of money needed to continue the "multi-state" effort. The
report was received at the December meeting of the Policy Board.
The Board moved to accept the recommendations of the Task Force for
inclusion in a final document to each state. A second motion by
Brennan withdrew the recommendation in regard to the Regional Resource
Teams-.
portion of the conceptual model devised by Task Force C
visually presents the structure of Project ACT which had emerged by
the close of Project ACT. In the full drawings the model shows how
the system relates to needs of individual clients, adult education
programs, and of adult educators, and also shows the linkages to the
evaluation process. The portion below was used alone to show with
more impact the structure of adult staff development which evolved"
in Pi''6ject ACT.
By the time of the March meeting two-states, Wyoming and North
Dakota, had expressed their desire to leave the consortium. At the
final meeting of the Policy Board in March, Utah made no commitment
of support. Montana, Colorado, and South Dakota, while all pledging
financial support, could not come up with the funding needed to
.preserve the Project in the form suggested by the Task Force. How-
ever these three,states may yet devise a way of continuing a three
state consortium for adult education staff development.r
23
SYSTEM FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ASD,PLAN
COMPONENTS OF SYSTEM'1 8
PE
1 PR.
1 PL
TH
0ACE1 .0 1 C
E G
1
8ESS :
S S
Individual Trainees , , LiteratureRegional Resdurce Teams, ITP's , Training Audio-VisualsOther Human Resources , Etc.. l' Sites Modules, Etc.
PARI S.DATA-BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
I
ORGANIZATIONAL-BASE Regional
State - - -Local - - -
Achievements
were:
IFUNDING BASEl
- Executive
Office
Evaluations of Project ACT received by the policy Board in 1975
Interim Evaluation Report in December, 1974
Individualized Training Program Evaluation in March 1975,
External Evaluation in June 1975
Third Year Internal Evaluation, June 1975
The Policy Board also received a comprehensive report and two
Position Papers concerning the Regional Resource Teams.
1. Consortium'Organization--In what can only be reported as a
negative development, three states elected to leave the consortium
3 %]
24
while the three remaining states of Colorado, South Dakota, and Montana
seek to find ways of continuing it on a multi-state rather than a
regional basis.
2. State and Regional Staff DevelopMent--A "Needs Assessment
Survey" was completed which gave multi-state and individual state data
to supply state directors of adult education and state strategy boards
with information to aid them in planning and conducting state staff
development training programs.
A regional workshop on evaluation under the direction of a Univer-f
sity of Illinois team was held with five participants from each state.
A workshop on the consultative process was held for Regional Resource
Teams in December-,
PARIS developed a computerized print:kit publication to facilitate
the use of its resources by the region. Guidelines for the develop-
ment of satellite centers were also developed. The first satellite :-
center in Denver, Colorado was established in cooperation with the
Colorado Department of Education. TheJanuary, 1975 PARIS, literacy
and audio-visual listing included approximately 3500 resources housed
in the Colorado Statejiniversity Resource Center and 1600 resources
housed in the Denver Center. The first printing of the '.Si to and
, Human Resource" component of the PARIS system was published in June
1975.
In early May.1975 a. Regional Adult Staff Development Conference
with a group of interested participants'of Project ACT in attendance
(former trainees and members of Regional Resource Teams, Staff, and
Policy Board Members) took positive steps to form an as yet unnamed
25
"Trainer Organization" to maintain and advance some of the main activ-
ities begun by the Project--especially.the trainer capacity begun by
the Regional Resource Teams. An interim Committee to continue planning
was appointed and is composed of: Terry Brattin, Chairman; Carlin Good,
Secretary/Treasurer; Paul Butterfield, Earl Ringo, and Sheila:Schroeder.
Dale Medearis and Mona Swanson are alternates.
Involvement of Others- -Seven Project ACT participants (mainly
first year) were identified as consultants for the new participants
who began training in March 1974.
The Maryland ABE/ITV Project of 30, half hour tele-lessons in
Adult Education were utilized through PARIS in three Institutions of
Higher Education in-Region VIII.
Project ACT co-hosted with others a cultural-ethnic awarenesi,
workshop for 40 participants of which only one was a regular ACT
participant.
Dr. Sjogren's Adult Education Cataloguing Project to'develop
and publish a listing of Adult Education Resources in Region VIII
was funded under 309c and will cooperate with PARIS.
Individualized Training Program--An evaluation of ITPs was con-
, ducted by Robert Clark with the first year participants. The results
of the questionnaires showed that the innovative ITP method is very ,
strong when compared with traditional methods. There was some indi-
cation that the characteristics of self motivAtion,Sand the degree to
which individuals have this characteristic, is very positively related
to success with ITPs. More research is planned.
32
26
Many instances of:the receiving of college credits were eecorded
this year for work done by participants in ITPs. One notable example
is the case of a participant receiving 15 graduate: credit hours for
Phase 1 of ITP activities through the School of-Educational Change
and Development, University,of Northern Colorado.
Dr. Kincaid, in an interview with the external evaluators, re-,
ported that the ITP model as developed for adult education' staff
training, may be adapted for use in Cooperative Extension, C.S.O.
Regional ResoUrce Teams--Thts year, 45 members of Regional
Resource Teams participated in 27 developmental sessions in the first
half of the FisCal Year. In addition 30 RRTs participated in the
December workshop on the Consultative ProceSt.
Three RRTs provided content area training in five'regions of South
Dakota with good evaluatign reports of their work. Two teams made
presentations to the Policy Board. (Information of later presenta-
tions were not available at the time of writing the external evaluation.)
In December the Policy Board gave it's approval t6 Dr. kincaid's
proposal of the "Liaison Concept" for Regional Resource Teams whereby
there would be a linkage established between each team and an expert
, in the field of the team's specialization.
At.thefinal Meeting of the Policy Board in March 1975, representa-
tives of the RRTs appeared at the board meeting to atk support in their
efforts to make their teams self-sustaining. In reply tertheir con-
vincing professionalism, the Boarck.allocated available monies to help
support their efforts. The result was the organizational meeting held
in May from which the "Trainer Organization" emerged.
33
r
27
Training-MOdule-Developmentth .centra=l-4aff-and-RRTs cooper,
ating, 15 modules were developed by the end of the project.
In addition, 5 modules were produced by individual states in the
.region.0
'Several of the modules were viewed by participants, Policy Board
and Evaluators in March.
4
tl
A
3,'
r-
28
t'Summary of changes and consistencies in Project ACT
Objectives A prime objective which remained constant from the initial
proposal through the end bfsFiscal Year .1975, was the effort to build a
Regional4Consortium Organization for adult staff development for the
six states and for Region VIII as a whole. This objective was given
a broader base in the first year of the project by defining a vertical
linkage within eath state of a State Strategy Board and of Local Soud-
ing Boards to make sure that,the Weeds of.localities and the unique
needs of states were addressed.
A corollary purpose was the building of "a system of training"
which beginning in Fy 1973 was identified as a "multi-dimensional
trainer capability." The original proposal further described the .
objectives for the system of training to be "self=sustaining" and.4
"an accepted program in institutions of-higher education."
As the project progressed and, the training system, or trainer
capability, became one centralized system (Individualized Training
-Pftgram) rather than the six "Institutional Trainers," the training
concept mandated the development-of a third objective- -the develop-
ment of training resources materials and a center to make them
accessible :to the region.
An additional ob'j'ective was added with the implementation of
Task Force A's recommendation to produce a "multiplier effect"
through the utilization of Project Participants in Regional Resource
Teams. The description of Project ACT as a "catalyst" for regional
adult staff training was an associated objective which came with
the RRT concept.
3 5
'Structure'
29
he objective of emphasizing and developing loCal adult educa-
tion leadership" was developed in the first year of the program and
remained constant throughout the remainder of the project.
The Policy Board Structure and composition remained the
same throughout the Project although the original proposal stated
that there might be a need to adapt this structure "as experience is
gained in Project development subsequent to its initial period of
operation"--and "to,effect more efficient and effective operations
within the Consortium framework." Two Task Forces and the recommenda-
I -tions of the External Evaluator also'sought to'broaden the-Board's
membership base andthe Board's ability and potential power to make
policy decisions, however no changes resulted.
The vertical lirkkages which were to'be established within the
states were not successfully carried out.
The Headquarteri Staff of Project ACT grew steadily in number of
employees and of hoUrs involved in Project work as the centralization
of adult staff training for the region became a staff responsibility.
The Individualized Training Program concept which became the "multi=O
dimensional" trainer system eventually involved 60 participant
trainees selected'for potential leadership'in adult education in the
region. The PARIS resource center was developed as a computerized,
data based resource center to coordinate training materials, experiences,
consultants, and other-resources for the ITPs. The staff also took over
the training of 8 Regional Resource Teams made up of participant trainees.
36
4
30
In compaing the structure Suggested in the,roposal (page 10)
with the structure of ACT as Task Force C presented/it in the final
year of the Project (page 23), i is noted that the six "Institutional
Trainers" which would have sprea training responsibilityinto all
'repsix states in the-region was replaced by a central system, operatIng
through PARIS which carried out, Individualized Training Programs by,
prescribing literature, consultatiop,,training experiences, and visits
to training sites to meet the needs of the individual participant.
. [Achievements] The primary obj'eitive of a RegiOnal Consortium Organ -\
ization for adult educatiOnNstaff d velopment.although not accomp-
lished in a self- sustaining tom has" been demonstrated by Project
ACT to be a viable concept over the three year program. Adult
educators from six states wh .made up the membership of the Policy
Board met often, talked abou common problems, discussed the needs
of adult education, agreed on the spending of Federal monies allo-
cated for those needs, and pa ticipated in the development of an
innovative method of adult st ff training which holds promise for
the future. 1
A partial fulfillment of this objective may be realized with a
three state consortium compoted of Colorado, South Dakota and
Montana. Also, an organization of professional adult educators
dedicated to forming a "Trainer Organization" will carry on many of
the concepts developed by Project ACT, regionally.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Project has been that
it could have developed the multi-dimensional training capability in
37A
o.
sstiort a space of time. Edigy descriptions of priorities and
"client-types".to be trained, mandated a flexible system by which
personnel from aides to administrators working at local; state, or
regional level could be trained. That the Individualized Training,-1
Programs were able to fulfill these stringgt requirements is a tribute
to the impressive dedication and creativeabilities of the staff.
The building of PARIS is really an undreamed of bonus which grew
out of the needs of the ITPs. It was not even-hinted at in the orig-
inal proposal, but grew steadily as the Project progressed. Hopefully,
housed at C.S:U. with satellite centers throughout the region, it can.'.
continue to serve for years to come.
A final achievement must be singled out. The concern displayed
by the members of the Regional Resource Teams who pledged their own
time, energy, and resources to continue to serve the region as
trainers of other adult educators in their appearance before the last
meeting of the Policy Board in March 1975 spoke. eloquently of another
bonus generated by Project ACT-- professionalism 4n adult education.
Part B - Policy Board
32
Perceived role position in March 1974 and March 1975
Table 1 identifies the perception of the role positiOn of the
Policy Board in March 1974 and'March 1975. The position of each
person was achieved by using a self-anchoring scale which required
thatseach,respondent first identified his role in the 'project in"the
"best" and in the "worst" possible light: Then he was asked to make
a decision as to his present status. This was done in both 1974 and
1975. The response was placed on a ladder type scale,rahging from
0 to 10. The mean of theJiVies made by the Board members was cal-,
culated and it is this figure that appears in Table 1.
The mean of 6.40 in 1974 and 6.12 in 1975 shows only a minor
change down. However, an analysis of the eleven individual responses,
for which data were available for both years, showed that six respon-
dents rated their Toles higher in 1975, four rated their role position
loWer and ont rating remained the same. Those who rated,their role
lower averaged a drop of nearly four points on the scale while those
whose rating increased, increased just over two points each.
Respondents Were asked to give reasons for any change 'in their
role. Eor those whose position went down examples of reasons given
are:
"There's a conflict in the basic purpose of Project ACT:"
"There's lack of communication with the State Director."
"The Project is drifting'and all we're doing is waitingfor the epitaph July 1, 1975."
*b.
4
14,
For those whose rating Went up, examples are:.
"My own involvement increased."
"My own growth in understanding of the Project."
"I'm more experienced."
"Board membei's are beginning to think conceptually.",
"We communicate better."
40
V.
33
j)
34--
TABLE 1
THE PERCEIVED ROLE POSITION (MARCH,1974 AND MARCH, 1975)OF THE POLICY BOARD ON A TEN STEP LADDER WITH TEN REPRESEKEING THE
ROLE IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT AND ZERO REPRESENTINGTHE ROLE IN THE WORSTPOSSIBLE-LIGHT.
1975 -1974
*The range of the perceived role 'positions by members of thePolicy Board were:
1974 4 to 10
1975 2 to 9
,
44 1
ft
tion of project outcomes for the region 1974 and 1975
Table 2-'shows-a-very-s14ght increase-in-the-Rol-icy .Board'_s_per,
35
ception of project outcomes foe the region. A self-anchoring scale
was again used with ten showing outcomes for Region VIII in the "best"
'light and zero in the "worst" The means for 1974 and 1975 are
based. on the responses in March of each year, when asked where on the
scale they were at this point in the project. The 1974 mean was 4.30-
and the 1975 mean was 4.40. Five ratings went down, four went up and
two stayed the same. The mean change was 2.4 down and 2.5 up.
Examples of the reasons respondents gave for changing their
ratings were as follows for those moving down:
"Lack of success of the RRTs."
"Board hasn't faced up to putting ACT, on ,a Regional
self-sustaining basis,"
"Board members want funds to go to -each state."
"Lack of state support."
For those whose ratings went up, examples are:
"It has stimulated my teachers to seek further training."
"There are positive. results."
"Staff development has been accepted by colleges on acredit basis."
"I,see possibilities for contindation by some states."
O
42
TABLE 2
THE PERCEIVED PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR THE, REGION (MARCH, 1974AND MARCH, 1975) OF THE POLICY BOARD ON A TEN STEP
LADDER WITH TEN REPRESENTING PROJECT OUTCOMES IN THE BESTPOSSIBLE LIGHT AND ZERO REPRESENTING PROJECT OUTCOMES
IN THE WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT.
1975 1974
*TheA.ange of perceived outcomes for the region by the PolicyBoard group were:
1974 3 to 7
1975 '1 to 8
137
36
3,7
Perception of project outcomes for the state
Table 23-shows-the_response_on_aself-anchoring scale:to a questton
on project outcomes for each Policy Boarci members-s own st4te. ,It was
noted here that a greater change Occurred between 1974 and 1975 than.in
the responses to the two earlier questions. The mean response 'in 19744 <A,
was 5.30 and in 1975 it was up to 6:12. five Board,members raised
their rating a mean of 2.8 on outcomes for their state, four lowerecR
the rating a mean of 2.1 and two remained the,same. Example's of
reasons given by respondents for raising their rating are:
"The ACT Model works in my state."
"State people use ACT products."
"We have 'utilized the RRTs."
For those whose ratings went down the - responses, were:
"No money went directly to the state from ACT."
"There is a lack of,cohimunication between teacher
education and ACT.';.,.
"There's no feeling'of participation."
44
t
TABLE 3
THE PERCEIVED PROJECT OUTCOMES (1974 and 1975).FOR THEIR 'OWN STATE-BY-THE--POLIGN-BOARD
1975 1974
11
38
*The range of perceived outcomes for their own state by the PolicyBoard were:-
1974 3 to 8
1975 1 to 9
4 5
Policy Board judgments on the value of ITPs and RRTs- A'Comparison
Tables 4, 5-and 6-demonstrate the value that Policy Board
members placed on-the ITPs and the RRTs for achieving selected
goals. The interview was developed in'such a way that respondents
knew they were valuing one side of the scale greater or less than
the other. The Tablesidentify mean respones on each side ofthe,
balance pdiht, the range and the places Where CTUsters of responses
occur in other than a normal curve arenoted.
In carrying out Project ACT objectives in your state - Table 4
shows a belief on the part of Board members that the ITPs have been
of mo're'value in carrying out ACT objectives in their state than
`have the Res. On a 0 to 10 scale the mean rating for ITPs is 5.61
while for the -RRTs it is 4.40. The responses do not follow a normal
curve pattern for either with clustering at the high (8) and low (3)
ranges of the scale. Likewise the value ranges.are'extreme, running
-from 2 to 9 for ITPs and 0 to 9 for RRTs. When ari individual respOn-../
dent rated either the ITPs or the RRTs two or mere points above the
other he was asked to explain what accounted for this difference.
Those favoring the ITPs indicated:
"They've done more.'
"This program fits our state's .philosophy."
"The participants are extremely capable."
"They Jere better funded."
Those favorihg the RRTs indicated:
"The RRTs have been used."
46
46
TABLE !I
COMPARISON OF THE VALUES OF THE INDIVIDUAL TRAINING PROGRAMS ANDTHE REGIONAL RESOURCE TEAMS IN CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTIVES OFPROJECT ACT IN THE STATE PROGRAM AS JUDGED BY THE POLICY BOARD
I I I I I I I
10 9 8 7 6n5 4 .3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
/5.61\ /4.40
Range ITP = 2 to 9Clusters at 8 and 2.5
Range RRT = 0 to 9Clusters at 3 and 8.5
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF THE VALUES OF THE INDIVIDUAL TRAINING PROGRAMS ANDTHE REGIONAL RESOURCE TEAMS TO THOSE ADULT EDUCATORSPARTICIPATING IN EACH AS JUDGED BY THE POLICY BOARD
I I I I 1 I I I I
Range ITP = 0 to 10NorMal distribution
Range RRT 5 to 9Normal distribution
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF THE VALUES OF THE INDIVIDUAL TRAINING PROGRAMS ANDTHE REGIONAL RESOURCE TEAMS TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER OF THE
, ADULT EDUCATORS' COMPETENCY AS JUDGED.BY THE POLICY BOARD
III 1 I I 1 1.1 1 .1 I I 1 I-1 1 1 I I
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5A 6 7 8 9 1010 9 8
5.90
Range ITP.= 1 to 10Cluster at 4 and 8
4B
1.
5.27
/
Range RRT = 2 to 8Clusters at 3,.6 and 8
41
42-
"It carries ACT directly to the consumers."
"Thegroup stimulation
"There.is more'potential for exchange."
In value to the participants themselves - Tab),e/5 demonstrates
that the Board rates' the RRTs a trifle higher than the ITPs. The '
means are 6.79 for the ITPs and 6.90 far the RRTs.- In this, nstance
thereis a normal distribution of responses on both sides of the
"scale with an extreme'range of from 0 to 10 for ITPs ,and 5 to 9 for
the 'RRTs.
In value to the consumer of adult education programs - Table 6'
shows a higher rating (5.90 to 5.27) given to the ITPs in reaching
the ultimate consumer. 'There is a wide range of response with a
response curve far'from normal. Clusters of responses appeared at
4 and 8 for the ITPs and at 3, 6 and 8 for the'RRTs.
Negative statements - During the interviews respondentscommented
freely on both ITPs and RRTs thus providing a number of negative com-
ments -about each depending upon the way they fixed numbers tb the
balance scale. Negatives about the ITPs related to lack of effective-
ness beyond the individual participantand a limitation in the identifi-
cation of the real need; of the participant.
Negatives about the RRTs were more numerous covering such factors
as cost, lack of use, lack of face validity as a team and no real tie
to a university in each 'state.
49
Hard evidence in support'of.ACT at the state level
Board members were asked .to recall any "hard evidence" they had
as to the value of ITPs, PARIS (Project ACT Resour ;e Information
System), and RRTs. They provided more "hard evidence" related to
PARIS and the RRts than they did for the ITPs as noted below._
ITPs - Use in colleges and'universities, from reaction of the
trainees. themselves, -and-trainees- inv.ited-to. classes-as. a -resotirce
person.
PARIS - Used to get material for graduate students, used in
the state, used personally, used by the office,,used for meetings.
RRTs - Used in state in-service, remarkable change'in partici-
pants, used teams in workshops, five workshops held, participants'
were enthusiastic.'
e
43
Elimination of RRTs
44
In. making plans for a follow-up of the regional project after Fy
'75 the Policy-Board at its December 1974 meeting voted to eliminate
the RRTs fi'qm such plans. This action was taken after a generally
favorable reaction to RRTs given by Board, Teams and ACT staff during
the 1974 external %evaluation. Because the December 1974 action was
at variance with 'the Mardi T974 responses i't' was assumed that some=
thing either went wrong or that the responses in March 1974 were not
valid. This being the case the .Board members were asked for their judg-
ment on the reasonslor the elimination of the RRTs from the proposed
follow-up budget. Eleven respOnses were given and are summarized
below:
'1. Will try to do our own in our own state.
2. No funds. A commitment to competency needs to be developedin our state first. The state wants to support only in-state services. The teams are not well developed.
3. The.teams are of poor quality.
4. There is no state funding support for RRTs.
, 5. There's no commitment.by some states, a, damn shame.
. 6. Lack of use, expense, jobs keep team members fromattendance.
7. Cost and travel, released time is difficult to obtain.
8. Not enough use.
9. Economics - this part could be cut most easily.
10. One Board' member worked to eliminate it and did.
11. Money.
51
1
45,
The reasons given demonstrated that the major reason for elimin-
ation is financial and in addition lack of state commitment, team
quality and limited team use led to the elimination of the MT
concept in the proposed budget.
0
4.
41.
46
sr
Consistencies' and changes, in objectives 1973 - 1975
Board membeNwere asked to identify consistencies andchinges in
the, objectives of Project ACT as they viewed it over the three year
period.. All but the newest members of the Board responded to this
question. The responses given are summarized below. It was noted
that in both the consistency.column and the change column most refer-
ences were to program donsistencies and program changes rather than
to changes in objectives.
Board
Member # Consistencies
1 Emphasis on regionalcoordination
2 Emphasis.on Regionalcoordination
3 There were no consistenciesby the Board, the Staff orthe Regional ProgramOfficer
4 Development of ITPs
5 Evolvement of a ResourceCenter
The Policy Board neverdealt with objectives
The Policy Board was con-sistently out of focus
6 ,.Continuing staff
development
53
. Changes
From developing individualsto picking expertsFrom state run to being runby the Regional office
In the how 'to do it.
Objectives stayed the same.
Example: Starting the RRTsrather than focusing onindividuals
Sounding Boards and StrategyBoards developed on paperonly
Developing the PARIS systembeyond initial plans
From a staff development anda consortium to ITPs
More-emphasis on PARIS-Are emphasis on module
development
Board
Member # Consistencies'
7 Trying to upgrade adulteducation teachers.,'
Never a.meeting with\a11Board members present
8 Focus on individual trainingBoard consistent in its lackof supportBoard consistent in its lack
, of commitment
Changes
_Thus the'staff rather thanthe,Board ran the-program
Dropping of the liaisonmembers
47
Upgrading the adult educa-tion teacher
Objectives haven't changed,'.just the approaches
10 Objectives are all the same The-staff development personin each state never material-ized
Activities have changed
11 Objectives hajen't changed. The introduction of theThey started with a focus PARIS SyStemon individuals and it led The threeToards neverto the ITPs developed as planned
12 No response (New) Dropping the RRTs in DM. 1974
13 No response (New) No response (New)
In analyzing the above it was noted that there was no agreement .
among Board members on the consistency .of objectives,. and- limited
o
agreement on what changed. There was no, evidence of homogeneity of
thought among the Board members.
54
48
Perception of Board members as to key decisions of Project ACT and
who was responsible for making them
In examining a thl'ee year project at the end 'of the thii'd year it
was possible to ask the Policy Board to list the key decisions of:that
period.and to identify the individual or group responsible for the key
decisions. Consitency of response would indicate a foctised project,
lack of consistency,the opposite. The summary below showed that the
--inconsistency-was-exiensfve-among-the-eteven-respuffdentS7-The-two
more recent additions to the Board did not respond.
BoardMember #* Key Decisions
A 'It was an open organiza-tion with everyone havinga chance to express them-
,
B
C
D
selves
Selecting ITP Participants,
deAning content, trainingand 'implementing
Expanding PARIS
All_decisions were key,
To have Regional ResourceTeams
States didn't submit adollar plan.
E States didn't put federalfunds back into ACT
Decisions were all made inadvance of.Policy Boardmeetings
Who Was Responsible For
Regional Policy Board at alltimes
.
First by the Board, later bythe Regional Staff
Someone other than thePolicy Board
And all maae by the RegionalPi-ogram Officer
The ,first Task Force, thenjammed through the Boardby the staff. The staff
. jammed many things throughDefault by everyone
State Directors, espedially
The State Directors maneu-:vered the Board atby their pre-meetthgdecisions
*The letter and the earlier number assigned...to the Board Member do notcoincide.
r-c-4()I)
Board
Member #*
F
G-
Key Decisions
(No specific onesmentioned)
Not to deal with the issueof the make up of thePolicy Board
H The only decision thePolicy Board ever madewas to go into execu-tive session 3/5/75
Evolvement rather than '
decisions
I
J
K
Identification of ITPs,ModulesDevelopment of RRTs
Not to continue RRTs
Writing the proposal andformulation of thestructure.
The system itselfShift to RRTsSuggest a new make-up ofPolicy Board
Allowing a Board memberto send a stand in
Not to act as a PolicyBoard
*The letter and the earliercoincide.
49
Who Was Responsible For It
CSU Staff and PoliCy Board..
.Policy Bbard
Policy' Board
The heterogeneity of thePolicy Board leads todominance by management
By staff not by the Board
Task Force and with reluctantBoard,approval
State Directors in consulta-tion:With.the power brokersin their own-states.
Kincaid and Minnis
KincaidTask Force (A)Task Force (B)
Chr. of Policy,Board wholet it happen by default
Individual Board memberswho were working for theirown state. Thus the Pro-ject Director`made Regionaldecisions because the Boarddidn't.
number assigned to the Board Member do n
An examination of the "who Was responsible" column above showed
howdispersed was the,perception of the Policy Board on who made the
s.
T
50
key decision fOr this project: The decision makers included the
Board', specific Board members, State Directors, Project Director,
Task Forces,staff and even suggestions that decisions were made by
default.
Likewise, the "key decisions" column covers decisions all the way
from writing the initial project proposal to dispensing with the RRTs
in the post - project budget.
C
..,
57
Oa
I
...
t't
, ,
r.
Part' C'- Direct Outcomes of the Project As PerceivedBy Educators One Step Removed From ProjectParticipation
After the random selection of twenty-four Project ACT partici-
pantS, the name, address and phone number,of the immediate supervisor
or admibistratOr of the selectees was provided by the State Director
of Adult Education. In all cases these State Directors were members
of the,Project ACT Policy Board. The direct supervisor or adminis-
trator was to be idePtified'in situations when they were employed
one-half time or-more in adult education. If Such administrators
or supervisors did,not meet this criterion then the person to be
interviewed was the school distritt'idministrator under whom the
ACT participant works. In one instance this was the chairperson
of the Library Board.
The--twenty questions and certain follow-up probes which were
asked during the twenty-four interviews are'listed below with a
summary of the responses.
In addition to a statistical summary of responses, 'selected
quotations will be inserted. This was done to demonstrate the
qualitative nature of the response pattern& coming from the inter-
views. Prior to questioning the interviewee a discussion was held
explaining its purpose apd introducing the interviewer. The basis
of selection was described and a formal request made to tape
record the interview. The interview proceded from there.
58
52
1. Have you noticed any difference in (his/her) ability asan adult educator since he/she began participating inthe Program?
Sixteen responded that there was,a positive improvement in the
participant as an adult educator.
Three said they had noticed no difference.
Six indicated that the participant was such a high-level adult
educator at the start of their participation that it would be
impossible fo make such a judgment.*O
Two responses could not be coded.
Examples of responses follow:
"Yes, when he came into the program he bloomed."
"No, I can't tell. We're so underfunded that he has todo it all anyway."
"She was always good."
"We'd like to'takeisome of the glory for his change in ability."
"We were so involved in "a bond issue that it took precedenceover adult education."
2. Is (he/she) more self-directed in,(his/her) work thanbefore?
Fifteen. said the participants were more self-directed.
Two showed no difference in'this characteristic.
Thirteen were described as so self-directed initially that no
such'judgment could be made.*
Response examples:
"Yes, she comes in with examples of new things more oftenthan before."
*In response to this type of,question the respondent often gave ananswer-of the participant having more of a certain quality. Thenas'an afterthought said something like this, "I'm not really sureshe's any better because she had so much ability when she joinedthe program. This response is counted twice thus the totalresponses may be more than twenty-four.
53
"Yes, he now expresses' himself directly.' He now holds his
own in competition with others and most astonishing tome, his writing skills have improved."
'No, he was very self-directed to'begin with."
3. Is (he/she) more self-confident in (himself/herself) asan adult educator?
Nineteen were said to have more self-confidence.,
Two showed no more of this characteristic.
'Five were identified as being heavily endowed with this charac-
teristic from the start*
Examples:
"Yes, that's part of it. She was insecure. Definitely, she's
much, much more self-confident,"
"No, he's-lackingjn this and I've seen no change."
"I don't know, she always was self-confident."
4. Has the Project in any way been a motivator for (his/her)professional improvement?
Nineteen respondents said that the.Project helped develop pro-
fessional motivation iathe ACT participant.
One said there was no greater motivation.
Fourmresponses could not be coded.
Examples:
"Yes, it's only in the last year that he's asked for time off
to work on his,e7D. degree."
"Yes, this is where the greatest. emphasis has come."
"No, he's too busy."
"There's no time, he's always motivated."
*In response to this type of ,question the respondent often gave ananswer of the participant having more of a certain quality. Thenas an afterthought said something like this, "I'm not really sureshe's any better because she had so much ability when she joinedthe program." This response is counted twice thus the totalresponses may be more than twenty-four.
6 Ob
54
5. Would (he/she) have done-these things (changes noted above)without such a program?
Thirteen. would likely have changed without the program betause
of their strong prbfessional commitments.
Six were identified as having changed because of the program.
Five answers could not coded.
Examples:
"Yes, he would have."
"Yes, but not as coherently."
"Maybe, but it'would have taken five or six years. ProjectACT hastened the changes."
"No,'I don't think so. He changed because of Project ACT andour use of MBOs."
"I don't know." .
6. Has this'person, as a result of (his/her) focus oaRegional Resource Team made any changes in (his/her) workthat has helped the adult students in (his/her) program?
Respondents rifted that fifteen participants had made changes in
their work as a result of the RRTs that helped students in their pro-
grams..
Nine responses were not codeable.
"Yes, he now arranges student-stag conferences."
"Yes, tremendously! Other programs don't look as good."
"It's happened more and more over.the two years. He's nowstronger one to one with students. He's developed aninformality."
"I can't assess this until in the summer."
"There's no way of measuring this, but some former studentswho couldn't get along with her are now coming back. She'splacing more emphasis on 'coping skills, discussion and adultdecision making."
61
r
55
7. Have any of the materials and abilities gained by(name of participant) been shared with other staffat your school?*
Nineteen respondents reported that the abilities gained and theil
materials accumulated were shared with other staff in their school.
It was reported that five did not share.
Examples: fl
"Yes, Colorado State University accepted the ITPs for formalcredit. She produced a simulation kit for a graduate classand shared it with them.
"Yes, she has helped the aides in the program and taught themwhat she has learned. She conducted three days of in-servicefor her own staff and for others."
"Yes, it comes out at staff meetings."
"Not directly."
"Not that I know of."
"ft,evidence."
8. Have any other staff members in'yourschool gottpn directhelp from Project ACT? (Direct contact with Project ACTrather than through the participant in your school.)
One of the measures of the multiplier effect of a federal project
is whether or not it extends beyond the direct participants. Question
eight sought that kind of evidence.
Thirteen :of twenty-four respondents had no evidence that this had
occurred.
Nine knew of participant activity that led to other staff getting
help direction from:Project ACT.
Two responses could not be coded.
*School is used in the generic sense. When the program was in a Centeror a library the specific term was used.
62,
Examples:
"No."
"Not directly.:
"I don't think they''Ve taken the initiative. (Name of ACTParticipant) carries the ball."
"Yes, our counseling and our ESL. staff."
"Yes, in one instance I can pink Of."
"Yes, they've ordered books and (Name of Participant)took the whole staff to 'Fort Collins."
it 9. Do you see any long range benefits to your school as aresult of (Name of Participant) 's participation inProject ACT?
Eighteen of the twenty-four respondents perceived long range
benefits to their school as a result of one of their employees
participating in Project ACT.
Four perceived no long range benefits, and two answers could
',not be coded.
Examples:
"Yes, her background of new experiences make her more valuable.'We were convincedthat.lt would be good for her and we wereright."
"Yes, a whole new direction on individual instruction and staffdevelopment."
'"Yes, as long as we can keep the program going. Funding is aproblem."
"No, the direct influence to the trainees is the value."
"I hope so, but I'm afraid of the usual federal syndrome ofstopping a program too soon. It would take five or sixyears."
63
56
10. How much information did you have on Project ACT before(Name of Participant) began to participate in.it?
Seven of the administrators or supervisors of the ACT partici-
pants said they had no infqrmation on the. Project in advance of the
entry of the participant.
Twelve said they had limited information.
Four-indicated that theyhad total information and one response
could not be coded.
Examples:
"NOnev_but CSU has a good reputation and,that makes it positivewithout information."
57
"Very little, it came on quickly."
"Not much."
"Very little, the administrator made the assignment and as asupervisor I accepted it:"
"I was in the Denver office conferring, ith Swenson, and Mthnissaw me and told me about it."
"Much, I was ih it before he was."
o , Was it enough?In what ways were you informed?
Although seven had no.information and twelve had limited infor-
mation (total 19 of 24) there were seven respondents who indicated
that they had enough information.
Fourteen said they did not have enough.
Two believed their information was limited and one respondent
sand that it made no difference because he trusted C.S.U.
6 4
58
The respondents..were informed about Project ACT in a variety of
ways both before and after one of their employees participated in the
program.
Six said that they still have not been informed a the
J.Project.
Seven were informed by the participants after they, were selected
and began their participation.
Six were informed by reading reports, brochures and documents
from the state office.
Three were infor:med by individual Policy Board members.
The two respondents who were totally informed were so informed
by virtue of the fact that one was an earlier participant and one
was on the central C.S.11. staff of the Project.
Examples of responses:
"Not at all, never. Perhaps it's because she's a part-timeemployee."
"By the participant after he started."
"Through mailings from the state and C.S.U."
"Alton told me about'it."
Did you know how much time would be devoted to it by,(Name of Participant)?
Eighteen of the twenty-four respondents said that they did not
know how much time their employee would devote tb the Project.
Six said they knew how much time it would take.
Examples:
"Not,exactly, not laid out for me."
"No."
"It took more time than I expected."
59
'"No, but I trusted him."
"Only as much as (Participant) knew, and he didn't know."
"Yes, but the significance of it was not clear."
"Yes, we sat down and scheduled it out. The Board of Directorshad to approve."
11. do you think that (Name of Participant) really knew how muchtime would be devoted to Project ACT when (he/she) got intothe program?
Fifteen of the twenty-four respondents did not think the partici-
pant knew how much time he would devote to the Project when he,got in.
Six thought-the-partici pant_did_know_and2three_answers_coul d not
be coded.
ExaMples of responses:
"No, vague, we talked about it taking one day per month andsometimes it has been four days at a ime."
"I don't think so, when she started she was enthusiastic and;
willing.",
'No, now she procrastinates about being gone more than shethought she would be."
"Yes, if anyone ever doei."
"Yes, but he was pleasantly surprised that it was for real."
"I'd hope so, hely/"Gung-Ho" 6 the project."
"Never. complained." (Not.coded.)
12. Is travel out of the state for in-service training helpfulto (Name of Participant)?
Twenty-two of the twenty-four respondents rated out-of-state
travel for in-service training as helpful to the participant from
their school.
Two gave non-codeable responses.
Examples of comments made:
"Yes, especially the Utah trip."
"It made him a more professional person."
"Yes, we could be inbred in this state if we're not careful."
"Yes, but I'm afraid he'll be hired away."
"Yes, becadse our state has little to stimulate it in adulteducation."
"Oon',t know."
It travel out of thestatefor in-service training -helpfulto your school?
Eighteen respondents rated out of state travel for in-service
60
training helpful to their school.
Two say it Was not and foUr responses could not,be coded.
Examples of comments:
Yes, anytime because we have such limited funds of our ownfor in-service."
"Yes, hes a great one to share things at weekly staff meetings."
"Yes, will save us money in the long run on what he learned aboutmedia, especially as we move to Cable TV."
"Yes, we usually have to rely on other states."
"Not really, but I'm hoping."
"No."
"She's independent." (Not coded.)
13. Have you heard any solid complaints about Project ACT from(him/her)?'
Describe:
Twenty-two of the administrators and supervisors had heard no
solid complaints about Project ACT from the participant in their
school.
a
-
z
61
Two indicated they had. One was related to the ITPs getting so
much material that they couldn't.get through it along with their other
work and one was a frustration with the original design of the
participants' ITP which was subsequently changed and became
beneficial.
Unsolicited comments included the following:
"I've heard no solid complaints but much of ACT is fOcused onABE thus giving it tunnel vision."
"No, but more advanced scheduling would have helped."
Nothing but enthusiasm."
"It's bedn very helpful, positive."
14. Would your district be willing to pay a user's fee forrefetzence material coming from a Project resourcecenter ?' (PARIS)
Fifteen respondents indicated a willingness to pay user's fees,
six of these were a c3ear "yes" while ninincluded certain qualifi-
cations..
Two would not bemilling and seven gave, response's that could.
not be readily coded.
Examples of responses are:01.
"Yes, but we would need to rely on (Participant's Name) 'ssuggeStions."
"Yes, but we'd have to have 'it come from special budgets."
"It depends on the cost."
"That's the problem, money."
15. How do you feel about (his/her) time off of the job' toparticipate in ACT activities?
Fourteen of the respondents were clearly positive about partici-
pants having time off of the job, to take part in ACT activities.
68
a
62
Nine were positive with qualifications and one was negative.
Examples:
"In no way does it jeopardize the job."
"Really good, in his Case."
"Very positive about it, our eyes were open'when. we went in."
"The only bad effect is the time off."
"In some respects it's'tended.to have a negative effect on thoSepeople she works with. They've looked to her for direction and ,
when she's gone some of them do nothing. But it's not assevere as this may sound."
"It's detrimental for him/to be away."
(If "positive") Would You encourage others in your school'toparticipate in such a program?
For those twenty-three who responded positively, eighteen would
encourage others to participate, two would not and one answer could
not.be coded.
16. What is your reaction to the overall project?
Of the twenty-four persons interviewed two hesitated to respond
to this global question because of limited information. Two had no
information and did not respond. Of the twenty remaining, eleven were
strongly positive and nine were positive but provided no strong state-.
ments or else they qualified their response in some way.
Examples of statements strongly positive are the following:
"It's about the most innovative thing I've seen happen. itbenefits both the staff and the community."
"Great."
The concept is,great."-
Examples of qualified statements were:
"I'm fairly positive. I wonder about the amount of benefitfor some. I'm 70% positive and 30% riegatiye."
63
"I'm rather positive."
"I'm above neutral but not fully enthusiastic and lack knowledgeof it."
"Sharing experiences is good, but I wonder if it's worth the'money."
Following this general reaction three questions were asked
inquiring as to whether or not the respondent had enough information
'to respond directly about the RRTs ,the ITPs and about PARIS. It is
in response to specifics that the extent of the knowledge vacuum among
administrators and supervisors came into focus.
Only six respondents knew enough about the RRTs to respond, six
about the ITPs and seven about PARIS. Even more noteworthy is that
three of the six who knew enough about the RRTs to respond, four of
the six for the ITPs and three of the seven for PARIS were from
Colorado the "home base" of Project ACT. Montana and Wyoming had the
next best record with five and four positive responses respectively.
North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah administrators and supervisors
gave no evidence of sufficient knowledge of these specific aspects
of Project MT to provide a reaction.
17. Of the entire program what do you believe was the mostmeaningful .to Name of Participant)?
When responding to the question of the most meaningful element
of the entire program to the participant from their school the
'respondents.provided an overwhelmingly favorite answer. It was the
exposure to new ideas and to other groups of adult educators. This
is what got through to them and they approved. Other responses in-
cluded exposure to new methodologies, the ITPs, the workshops put on
70
64
as a member of an RRT Team and the chance for independent crystalization
of their own ideas.
18. How many days per year do you believe someone from yourdistrict could be made available to help teachers andadministrators in other states?
The plan for Project ACT during Fy '75 was that twenty days could
be made available for Project activities. This question deals with
the future rather than the past and responses provide .evidence for
planning activities if a self-suStaining regional staff development
'plan should materialize.
The range and mean of the responses to this question are noted
in Table 7 showing an overall range of from zero to sixty days WithO
an overall mean of thirteen days. Means among states vary from 9.75
for South Dakota to twenty-six for Colorado. The Colorado figure is
skewed upward by reason of the one response of sixty. The mean of
the other three respondents from Colorado was fourteen which is still
higher than that of the other states.
TABLE 7
DAYS PER YEAR ADMINISTRATORS BELIEVE SOMEONECOULD HELP TEACHERS IN OTHER STATES
State Range of Days State Mean Grand Mean
O
Colorado 12 - 60 26.0
Montana 6 - 20 11.5
North Dakota 0 - 20 10.0= 13.1
South Dakota 9 - 20 9.75
Utah 0 - 25 11.25
Wyoming 10 - 10 10.00
71
65
19. Would you classify the participant from your school asa real professional educator?
Twenty-three of the twenty-four,risponses to this question were
"yet" and often with follow-up statements such as "definitely" "very
much so" and "top in the state."
When asked why or why not, the response to the why included
statements such as these:
"Terribly dedicated." "Willing to grow." "Desires to serve
people." "Keeps up to date." "The only thing he loves more-th'an
.education is goose hunting." "She can cope." "Self-sufficient."
"Has that sense of responsibility," and "She's always aware of students."
The one "No" response to this question was followed by the description
of a person who has a problem with his own identity, who lacks security
and doesn't know his own strengths and weaknesses. This was followed
by a statement indicating that.the person is far more professional than
two years ago with a belief that professionalism is forthcoming.
20. Is (he/she) more professional than (he/she) was two yearsago?
Question 20 was the last asked of the administrator and super-
visors. Here again the response to an overall question of participant
grOwth was very positive.. Nineteen of the twenty-four respondents
answered "yes" to the question while the other-five respondents spoke
of-individuals whom they said were "tops" two years ago and had very
little room for noticeable improvement.
Examples,:of responses are as follows:
"Yes, you bet."
"He's good, that's why I sent him."
72
Cr
,
P
"Yes, one of the best."
"Yes, from natural growth in the profession. 1 don't
know how much is ACT related."
"Good then and:good now."
"So good two years ago that it's hard to say."
73
66
67
Part D - Other Findings
Data for Part D came from a variety of sources. The basis of the
findings on Advisory Boards comes from both Project ACT Central Office
and from interviews with the-Policy Board. Thoughts of the ITPs,-RRTs
and ACT Staff come from directed but informal group interviews with a
sample of convenience from each population. Sources of Supplemental
Funding come from documents available in-the Project ACT Central
Office. Data on action taken as a result of the recommendations of
the 1974 External Evaluation come from an examination of Project ACT
documents distributed after June 1974 and include in addition to
staff and Task Force reports the minutes of Policy Board Meetings.
74
68*
Advisory Boards
The plan for Project ACT include three types- of advisory boards
deemed important for the success of the project. They were the Pro-
ject ACT Policy Board for the Region VIII, State Strategy Boards for
each of the-six states and Local Sounding Boards. In the First Year
Report June 30, 1972 - July 1, 1973 %is found this statement: "Toa.
ensure effective training program development (i.e., planning,
implementation, and evaluation) within each state, the concept of
state 'strategy' and local 'sounding' boards has been incorporated
within the Region-wide ASD System organizationalcstructure. These
boards, which are designed (1) to be widely representative of ASO
interests, and (2) to provide a 'vertical' linkage in membership
(i.e., local board representation on state boards and state board
representation on the Regional Policy Board), are the chief organ-
izational mechanisms by which program needs assessments, planning,
implementation, and evaluation are conducted in each state."
Thus, since these boards are the chief organizational mechanism
they should be examined. There wasn't much to examine. Beyond the
Regional Policy Board the picture is bleak. According to datain
the Central Office there is a Colorado ABE Advisory Council, there
is a Montana State Strategy Board and there is a South Dakota State
Advisory Council. There was no evidence of anything esembling a
State Strategy Board in the Central Office for North Dakota, Utah
and Wyoming. Neither was there evidence at Project ACT Office on
Local Sounding Boards in any of the states.
7i)
69
As a follow-up to this lack of information each member of the
Regional Policy Board was asked during his interview whether or not
his state had a State Strategy Board and a Local Sounding Board.
If any were identified they were'asked to describe the extent of the
activities of these boards. The responses of the two persons from
each state are noted in Table 8.
It was noted in Table 8 that the two Regional Policy Board
'members in Wyoming and Utah did not agree as to whether or not a
State Strategy Board existed and in Colorado, North Dakota and
South Dakota there was a different response in respect to Local
Sounding Boards.. In addition, the Regional Office of Project ACT
reported that no State Stfdtegy Board existed in Utah but Utah
respondent #1 indicated that one is active at various times while
respondent #2 said it no longer meets, having last met in June 1974.
Such confusion over "the chief organizational mechanism by which
program needs assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation
are conducted in each state" is prima-facie evidence that no
organizational mechanism exists.
G
70
TABLE 8
RESPONSES OF POLICY/BOARD MEMBERS REGARDINGSTATE STRATEGY BOARDS AND LOCAL SOUNDING BOARDS
0
4.,
Ca)"0C
>1Cr)W
CrlC1.-
O.V)
"0-I-) its S.-(S. go
-0ro = 5.-.u = go
StateCU
CG4-) -I-) 0Lilril 03 Comments
0 00430JU1 Comments
Colorado #1 No Yes Not a part of ACT
#2 No Had one first year NoReviewed the secondyear
Dropped the thirdyear
Montana #1 Yes Meet and discuss ACT Yes In come communitiesNot of much use Loose knit -
Could be called one
#2' Yes Fairly active Yes In Billings & Helena
sl,
North Dakota #1 No
Meet from once permonth to once inthree months
No
ACT has had aninfluence on these
#2 No Difficult to travel,in N. D.
? There may be somenot related to
People are tired ofmeetings
ACT
Professionals expectlaymen to beinterested
South Dakota #1 Yes Began in 1967, tiedto State budget
Yes Over 1/2 of the programs have them
Meets four to sixtimes per year
No guidelines
Modeled after aSchool Board
Encouraged but notpushed
7. 74
71
TABLE 8 (Continued)
State
4,c43c0.
`cil0.)
cx
cu
44 #135.RS L. RI+J44 0crivuo
.
Comments
colcRI C S.f.) 7 Rs_.°°°u.nco Comments
South Dakota #2 Yes They planned how theRRTs. were to be
used
? Doesn't think thereare any
To continue partici-pation in ACT,identify needs,plan workshops,etc.
Utah #1
,
HaveHad
Active at varioustimes
No.
Asking for adviceHavebeen involved
during last 3years .
#2 Yes NO longer meeting No .
It had an undesire-able make-up
,
Last meeting June1974
Wyoming #1 Yes Yes Each district hassome kind oflocal board
#2 Nota
Meets about twicea year. It's an
Yes Only in thestronger
For-mal
One
informal group anda somewhat 'differ-ent group eachtime. . .
, program
Participants aresought out.
'73
0
Thought of ITPs and RRTs
72
In March 1975 the interviews with the Project ACT Policy Board
were held in Denver at a time when RRT and ITP participants were
involved in a staff development workshop on evaluation. An ITP and RRT
sample of convenience was possible dUring this period. In one
instance the external evaruators met with a group of six partici-
pants and questioned them about the ITPs. In the second instance
4 meeting was arranged with four participants and they were questioned
about the RRTs. One set of questions was the same for both groups.
They were asked to compare the ITPs and the'RRTs as to the value to
them as individuals,, the value to other adult educato -s and the value
of each to participants in adult education programs under their juris-
diction (ABE, GED students, etc.). This comparison was made on a
balance type rating scale as shown on Table 9.
Table 9 shows a somewhat more favorable judgment by ten partici-
pants on the value of the ITPs to themselves, to other adult educators
and to participants in adult education programs at the local program
level. The differences are slightly over one point on a ten point
scale for value to themselves and to local program participants.
The difference is only .20 points in their judgment of ITP value
to other adult educators.
Six participants responded to a series' of questions about ITPs
and a summary of their responses follows:
1. What kind of changes has involvement in ITPs brought aboutyou that perhaps would not have occurred had you not
participated?
73
VALUE
a) To you as anIndividual
b) To otheradulteducators 10 9 8 5 4 3 2
"b.
TABLE 9
MEAN'RESPONSES OF TEN PARTICIPANTS ONTHE VALUE OF ITPs AND RRTs
ITP
73
Imolai. n IIIIIIIIII8
= 8.15
ITP
1 1 1 1 1' 0
-a
3c= 6:95
RRT
I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1
7 8 9 10
5.80
ITP
5.60
RRT
/
c) To partici-pants (ABE,
1 ,I mill, 1' 0
i 1 1 iiiiii, 1
GED, etc.) 10 9 8
X = -6.0
5 4 3. f 1 0 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10
8i
7' . 4.66
.S
74
"At gave me more confidence."
"I became more effective as a teacher."
"I learned that mine wasiV.t the only adult education program."
"I became knowledgeable about administration."
2. What outcomes for you have been passed on to others?a) Adult educators
"After the Medearis workshop I helped other adult educatorson the consultation process."
"Two months later I passed items on to Girl Scout-leaders inmy community and later to Community College staff in a work-shop."
"I shared my materials with teachers at the Technical Centerwhere I teach."
"I circulate my materials to the school. staff."
"I'm trying to get ITPs at a state level ACT Program."
b) Participants in adult education programs (ABE,GED, etc.)
"I added computer assisted instruction to my program after oneof my consultations."
"I now do student accounting much like the ITPs do it."
'"After a three day workshop with Dr. Brown I look at and under-stand my adult students differently.'
"I was able to improve the faculty performance criteria for mystaff."
"I've begun working with my students on a one to one basis."
3. (This dealt with the comparisons reported on earlier.)
4. a) As an IF participant, what use have you made of PARIS?
Four of the six interviewed have used the audio visual materials.
"I've read stacks of books."
"We get materials we couldn't get other places."
81
,1
75
b) `ghat encourages its use?
"The new catalogue."
"Materials are easier to get than through a library."
"The'staff at PARIS is helpful."
':We need the materials in our school so we make use of them."
c) What discourages its use?
"Not enough time to read" was the unanimous statement of the
six involved in the interview.
5. How has your own growth through ITPs'been checked forprogress?a) By you
"Our school system has a peer rating and I rated higher after:participation."
."Those of us who use ITPs for credit programs have an auto-matic rating built in."
"My own evaluation had a large beaiing on my.going back formy Matters."
b) By CSU staff
"We give 'oral reports to Ginny at her request."
"It's an informal evaluation but we have given progressreports."
"Theri is a.:,need for re-evaluation because of changingneedi."
"Yes, because I didn't know what all the choices were inTeacher Effectiveness Training."
6. Which of the following experiences related to xIXPs do youbelieve was the most valuable to your growth as an adulteducator?
Place these in'priority order:
Consultation with selected resource persons.
Initial need identification with project staff.
Literary and AV Resource List. 4.
82
;,
76
Use of the PARIS resource.
Conferences and Workshops.
After five minutes of discussion the six interviewees decided
that they could not place the experiences in a priority order.
They sorted the experiences into "higher" and "lower" groups as
follows:
HIGHERConsultations with selected resource people.Use of the PARIS resource.Conferences and workshops.
LOWERInitial need identification with project staff.Literary and Audio-Visual Resource List.
,s 7. Did you know what was in store for you when yob began theIndividual Training Program? (Regional Resource TeamMembership)
Responses here emphasized the total time that both ITPs and RRIS
took because all those interviewed in this group and in.the RRT group
had a planned Individual Training Program and were members of a
Regional Resource Team. Examples of the responses of both groups
follows:
"It would have helped to have known how much time was expectedof us."
"It was tremendously more time consuming than expected. I'veput in twenty-five days on it in the last four months." "I'Ve
.put in more than that."
Some of our administrators didn't know either.",
"It would have helped to have had someone experienced with an I
ITP to describe it for us."
"I know someone who is paying her own teaching substitute while' ,
on RRT activities."
8 3,
77
"As I was being interviewed*by the staff for a possible partici-pant I was just saying something to say something. It so dis-turbed me that I almost gave'up. I was not sore, I was justconfused."
Four participants responded to a series of questions about RRTs.
,Selected quotations from their responses are used to summarize what
they said. These quotations follow: ,
i 1. What kind of changes has involvement in the RR Teams broughtabout in you that perhaps would not have occurred had younote participated?
"As a result of interaction on the, team I am better able to dealwith, other people. I learned to compromise."
O
"It was comforting to find that I had something to share with myteam. It eased my anxieties."
"It gave me a Chance to change some things that I was told to d6at my school but which really didn't work. I could look at
.thiffgs more critically."
2. What kind of changes, has such involvement brought about tothe team as a team is a result of/the RR Team experience?
"Our team was extremely good from the beginning, and we focused. on the educationally deprived adult students."
"We discovered that we had to change,our method of approach be-cause one member tried to control the team. That person leftthe team and the team has developed since."
3. What outcomes to you personally have been passed on to others?
40ar Adult educators
I helped establish Reading Lab."
"The values clarifi ation materials were shared with other staff."
"Materials I learned' of old the Administration Team were used in .
the state evaluation."
"We came back home with 'hands on' materials and other teachersand coordinators in our system ordered and used them."
b) Participants in adult education programs? (ABE, GED, ettO
!'The Reading Lab su got to students."
."Not very direct but gets to them through counseling."
84
78
"Greater tolerance for students."
4.( a)_ As an RR. Tead participant, what use have you made,ofPARIS?
"I haven't - but I'looked over the catalogue."
b) What encourages its use?
"The catalogue."
"Having seen. and been sent the materials."
c) What discourages its use?
"Time."
"The procedure of ordering through the mail."
"Trying'to get teachers to"say what they want."
"Not having the catalogue early enough."
5. How has your growth through RR Teams been checked forprogress?a) By you
"The number of times you think about it and use it in developingand solving problems and then think, 'Last year I wouldn't havedone it-that way.'"
"There's ant. increased awareness 15f both problems and solutions."
"Confidence is the criterion."
b) By CSU staff
,'They sat in on our meetings and gave'us a critique afterwards."
"They've been in on our team meetings but there was nothing putin black and white."
The four RR Team members interviewed were able to place five
.71
experiences related to,the Resource.Teams in priority order as to
their value to their growth as adult educations. This order for
, question six .(6) was:
sr
0
0
C.,
r 79
1. Preparation for team presentations.
2. Conferences and workshops.
3. Giving a team presentation.
4. Consultation with Project ACT staff.
5. Use of the PARIS resource.
They indicated as a group that there was a big gap in value to them
as team_members between item four (4)'consultation,high value, and9
item five (5) use of PARIS, less value..
Following the group interview the four team members discussed the
issue of whether the teams will survive after Fy '75. They believedti
'that it was possible because of the dedication of the members. They
agreed that the financial elements were the most troublesome, that
there was no prOblem to get away to put on in-service sessions from
twelve to twenty days per year and that a large team would be advis-,
able in order to develop specialties and provide flexibility. There
was. evidence of very strong ties to.other team members anywhere in
the Region.
86
80
Perceptions of ACT staff
Informal interviews were held with small groups'of Project ACT
central staff and with the Project Director. In total eight staff
persons were involved in the Aiscussion.
A summary of these informal interviews follows and comments made
are,organized into a list of strengths of the project and a list of
weaknesses of the project. The interviewees were.not asked to list
such strengths and weaknesses.: Theirs was a response to interviewers
Who said, "Let's talk about Project ACT."
Strengths
1. A comprehensive body of materials,have been gathered
for PARIS and the Resource Center.
2.- PARIS is being used:and is likely to continue in the
future without Rroject-ACT.
3. Where the'State Director supports ACT there appea
to be more use of ACT services (ITPs, RRTs, PARIS).
4. Colorado developed a positive model for state planning
with ACT help.
5.: Participants on the ITPs were pleasantly surprised at
thd opportunity they had to confer with experts within
or outside of the Rdgion.
6. The ITPs concept is likely to be picked up by other
agencies and used (Cooperative-Extension).
7. Some Universities have accepted ITPs for graduate
credit.
i.o
. 81
8. Participants have become noticeably more. professional.
9. The RRT members seemed to have a positive understandingO
of the problems of the State Director.
10. The Regional Resource Teams are so dedicated that they
will form their own non-profit association to continue
regional staff development work.
11. About two-thirds of the ITP and RRTiparticipants were
or have become equal to or more professional and com-
petent than the Policy Board members.
12. It appears as if three-of the six states are willing,
to work out some regional arrangement after Fy '75.
Weaknesses
1. The Policy Board has seldom made policy.
2. The Policy Board resented any strum role exercised
by the Project staff.
3. In certain states there is a breakdown of communication
between its own two Policy Board Members.
4. Some Policy Board Membersappeart as if they wished
to sabotage the Project.
5. If the present Policy Board continues there will be
no Project ACT next year.
6. The Policy Board members never have accepted'the idea
of advisory groups because they didn't want to share
any- "power."
7. Advisory Boards didn't dOelop where they had not
existed before ACT.
40'
82
8. There's a .gap between what participants communicate to'
ACT staff and what State Directors communicate.
9. The ACT concept was not communicated nor publicized
in several states.
10. There was little communication between the ITP partici-
pants-and the Policy Board except in one state where it
was of a negative type.
11. First year participants didn't know what was in store
for them.
12. Certain states see no value in persons coming to them
from outside their state boundaries. (Professional
provincialism)
13. The Project wasn't long enough to provide a fair test
of the Model.. It took the entire first year to get
d
underway.
14. Supplemental funding is more on paper than an organized
contribution to the Project.
15. The project was administered very looseli\thLs most
decisions called for action on very short notice.
16. The Program manages the staff rather than the staff
managing the Program. This causes everyone to be
overworked including the secretaries. It's a case of
being overprogrammed and understaffed..
1
83
83
Supplemental funding
Tables 10 and 11 demonstrate in tabular form the source and
amount of supplemental support for Project ACT. These data were
provided as a means of demonstrating the limitations.of data avail-
able in the Project ACT office as of March 1975. It was not claimed
to Je complete norin any way indicative of support for a multi-
state Adult Staff Development System.
There was no criterion used regionally to determine what fund-
ing was entered by the various states into the separate categories
of supplemental funding. Noted in Table 11 were such gross variations
as a contribution of $134,113.00 by an. Institution of Higher Education
- in Wyoming while in the otherlive_states_combined-the-contribution is
only $4,776.42, local program contributions of $4,800.00 in South
Dakota and less than this in the other five states combined, and such
other anomalies as noted in both the State Grant and Individual
column.
90
84
TABLE 10
FY '73 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING DOCUMENTATION
SOURCE AND AMOUNT
StateState and LocalEducation Agencies
Inftitutions ofHigher Education State Total
Colorado $42,336.65 $1,100.00 - $43,436.65
Montana 1,537.48 , 2,977.19 _ 4;514.670
North Dakota 8,486.59 360.00 8;846.59
South Dakota 18,000.00 2,000.00 20,000.00
Utah 3;600,00 - * - *
Wyoming - * - * 10,229.03
Source Total 73,960.72 61437.19 87,026.94*'
* No data available in Project ACT office.
** Using Utah State and Local :ds State Total this figure would be $90,626.94.
85
TABLE 11
FY '74 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING DOCUMENTATION
State 304State Grant
.. .
Institution
ofHigher Ed.
Local
Program',,
Individual State
Total
ColoradoNot availablein P. ACTOffice
$ 1,143.61*Not avail-able in P.
ACT Office$2,744.65 $ 3,888.26*
Montana $ 3,061.33 $ 3,101.81 $ 486.00 $1,008.00 $ 7,657.14
North
Dakota $13,116.97 $ 461.00 $3,090.00Not avail-able in P.ACT Office
$ 16,667.97
South ,,
Dakota
Not availablein P. ACT
Office$ 70.00
.
$4,800.00 $2,157.66
.
$ 7,027.66
Utah $ 9,241.80
Not avail-able in P.ACT Office
Not avail-able in P.ACT Office
.
$2,148.86 $ 11,390.66
WyomingNot availablein P.*ACTOffice
$134,113.00
Not avail -
able in P.ACT Office
$ 493.00 $134,606.00
Source
Total
...
$25,420.10 $138,889.42*-
$8,376.00 $8,552.17 $181,237.69*
* NOTE: Supplemental Funding Documentation for C.S.U. is incomplete.Estimated additional.suppleMental funds from C.S.U. are,
anticipated to exceed $15,000.00. (Additionally, C.S.U.providet office space for Project staff and housing for the
PARIS system.)
6
. 92').
86
Follow -up on recommendations of the 1974 external evaluation
In June 1974 the results of the first external evaluation were
presented to the Project ACT Policy Board and to Project ACT staff in
both oral and in written summary'which included the recommendations.
The complete document* was made available to them shortly thereafter.
The recommendations were examined in May'1975 along with recent0
Project ACT documents to identify evidence of action on these recom-
mendations.
The best available documents showed that the following has been
accomplished on,,each of the nine recommendations:
1. A. 'Recommendation
Action should be taken at once to reconstitute the
Regional Policy Board, naming as new members those
with a commitment to adult education Who also have
the leadership base essential to action in their
own state, college, .or university, and in the
region.
B. Action
None.
2. A. Recommendation
An in-service program on "Boardsmansbfp" should be con-.
ducted foi: the entire Regional Policy Board clarifying
and ;designating policy development responsibilities and
leadership roles.
*Kreitlow, Burton W. External Evaluation of Project ACT Ft. Collins,.Coloraco, Colorado State Univetsity, Project ACT VIII, June 1974. .
93
O.
87
B. Action
Task Force C reaffirmed this recommendation in its
report to the Policy Board in December 1974. No
action has been taken.
4. A. Recommendation
An orderly procedure should be developed in informing
legislative and educational' leaders of the goals and
program of Project A0T.,
B. Actioni
A prOcedure was developed,and the Region'VIII Program
Officer (Dr. Roy Minnis) and a Project ACT staff member
(Dr. Paul Butterfield) systematically visited each of
the six states and confer,ed,with appropriate leaders.
They reported that limited knowledge of Project ACT'
existed at these leadership levels.
4. A. Recommendation
State Strategy Boards and Local Sounding Boards should
be organized and operating by September 30,.1974.
B. Action
Colorado is attempting to develop cooperative linkages
'between existing general, Advisory Boards and Project ACT.
Montana proposed to strengthen its existing State
Strategy Board and increase the number of its Local
Sounding Boards.
North Dakota included plans to organize a State Advisory
Council in 1975.
94
St'
Utah and Wyoming provided no evidence of additional
activity other than reported in Table 8.
5. A. Recommendation '
ea,
Policy Board support of teams,is essential to their
development. It is recommended that each team have:
a-member of the Policy Board on it in an action or
ex-officio capacity.
B. Action
The-Project ACT Policy Board took no action on this
recor nendation. The newly formed,non-profit assci-
ation being developed by Project ACT participants
does .plan this action.
6. A. Recommendation
Each Regional,Resource Team should include a Univer-
sity professor as fin, action member (a la Sue Harry,
Utah) or as a consultant dviser: For example, on
the Administration in Adult Education Team a Professor0 4
of School Administration with an interest in adOlt
1:"
'
educa.tion would be eppropr:iate; on the Individualized,.,
Approaches to Instruction Team, a Professor of Reading
or of Adult Education would be good; on the Media and
4..the Adult Educator. Team, a' Professor of Communications
or of Audio-Visualt Instruction should be sought, etc:
B. ACtion
The'situation remained the.same with two university
professors on teams and'tne of these was on leave to
a.
$,
88
89
work on the Central Staff of Project ACT during
Fy !75.
Dr. Kincaid presented a similar recommendation in
a Position Paper'in October 1974. He, recommended
that each RRT be linked with a staff member Of an
institution of higher education or with a social
agency or organization. 'This "Liaison Concept"
was approved by the Policy Board and several months
later' the Policy Board dropped support for the RRTs.
"Liaison Concept" was never implemented.
The newly f6rmeil association plans to address bhi
issue.
7. A. Recommendation
To become.viable, Resource Teams need a clea focus
in the type of contribution each can.make i response
t/
. to requests for aid. The Policy Board 'should recom-
mend' Project Staff aid in this. focus ng of team
effort. A committed university 'staff per on on every,
\team as is now the case with the Interpe sonal Communi-
cation Team would be an important first step.
B. Action
No action has been taken by the Policy Board on this
recommendation. /
The newly' formed non-profit associatrn is pursuing
this recommendation in Its attempt to more sharply
focus team contributions and involve'university staff.
9G.
Four university staff per ns participated in the
7organization meeting in' ay 1975.
8. A. Recommendation
The Project ACT Staff, during the last year of the /
Project should direct its efforts to make Adult
Competency Training for adult educators a part o!,
professional undergraduate and graduate educattOn
in at least one college or university in each
state. (This does not necessarily mean a graduate.
degree in Adult Education, byt does mean course
offerings in Adult Education.)
The excellent materials developed in the
Individualized Training Programs'should become
part of the program offered by each of a number
of colleges in the Region.
A credit bearing internship should be organized
'at each college where a professor is associated with
a Resource-Team. An agreement among these colleges
,should be made to-establish a ready transfer of such
intern credit among them.
B. Action
None is being taken formally by the Project ACT Staff
tmt individuall,Participants in the ITPs are following
up this suggestion with their own colleges and lirliver-
sities and'some credit has been granted.
97
90
O
O
91
In addition, Colorado State University tookthe
initiative in granting graduate level adult education
credit to ACT participants for work on ITPs and RRTs in
Fy '75. An-annpuncement was made to all participants
that registration for credit was available.
9. A. Recommendation
Plans should be made -very soonto establish a structure
that will provide coordination of staff development
efforts after" June 30, 1975: The institutional "home"
of this coordinating mechanism should be chosen on the
basis of predetermined criteria and upon application by
institutions wishing to contribute to this important
regionai responsibility.
B. Action
The development of a structure for coordination of staff
development in Region VIII has beem attempted. Evidence
showed that North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming will not
participate in such a coordinating mechanism. Colorado
and Montana will-and South Dakota appeared positive;
Thus there may be a coordination of staff development
efforts by three states on a formal basis within
Region VIII. In addition 'if the non-profit association
becomes viable it would likely include participants from
and staff development services to all six states of the
region.
0
,98 0
92
Section IV
Summary of Findings, Conclusions, Hypotheses and What Can Be, .
//',O
,(Have you read the Preface?)
This section lists in summary form the key findings oft this
external evaluation as identified in documents and gather'edfrom
individuals and from groups. A number of conclusions ,Are based on
these findings. These are presented in as succinct/A form as
possible, risking the danger of over generalizati,pn. In some
instances strong hunches or hypotheses are suggfisted by the-findings.
These are not completely supported. However/they will be presented
and listed as hypotheses needing further stiLy. Finally, with the
./great potentials of Region VIII, its eduyAtiopal leaders and
participants in Project ACT, the external evaluators identify their .
support for a "Trainer Organization"/now being formed.
fl
6
Summary. of findings
'Internal documents!
1. The purpose and objectives of Project ACT remained constant
from the initiar*proposal and throughout the three years.
2. The structure of the Policy Board remained constant despite
recommendations for change by two Task Forces and by both
internal and external evaluators.
3. The training system initially suggested in the proposal
changed from a dispersed Six state system to kcentralized
system.
4. The central staff expanded as the regional training program
became more centralized.
5. The PARIS system (resource center) was established to meet
the needs of a centralized training program.
1
6. Regional Resource Teams were developed to add a multiplier
effect to the small number of ITPs trained in the Project.
7. Three states haveisaid "No" to a regional consortium.
Three states havelpledged support for such a consortium.
8. A new professional staff training organization has been
established for USOE Region VIII.
rhe Policy Boards
1. Very little change occurred in Board members perception of
their role as a Board member between 1974 and 1975. The
mean rating of their role was slightly lower but more Board
members raised their 'role rating than lowered it.
1 0 0
93
O
94
2. Very little change occurred in Board members perception of
Project ACT outcomes for the Region between 1974 and 1975.
The mean rating of outcomes for the Region was slightly'
higher but more Board members lowered their rating than
raised it.
3 A moderate increase in the Board members' perception of the
outcomes of Project ACT for their own state occurred between
1974 and 1975. More Board members raised deir rating than
lowered it.N
4. Board members are divided on their perceptions of their
role and on thei 'judgments on the value'of the outcomes
of Project ACT foe the.Region and for their state.
5. Board member's judge the value of the ITPs in carrying out
the objectives of Project ACT in their state to be higher
than the value of the RRTs.
6. Board members judge the value of the RRTs to the project
participants to be slightly higher than the value of, the
ITPs.
7 Board members judge the va1(ie of the ITPs to the consumer
adult education program to be slightly higher than the
value of.the'RRTs,
8. Board members have very diverse judgments as to the values
of the ITPs and the RRTs.
9. Board members have more "hard evidence" to support their
judgments on the values of the RRTs and of PARIS than
.they have for the ITPs.
101
PAMMMWW.,,,,M.
10. Board members indicated that the RRTs Were eliminated from
the follow-up proposal because of financial difficulties,
1
use.
of state commitment, low team quality and limited team
95
11. When Board members were asked to identify Consistencies and
changes in objectives between 1973 and 1975 they nearly all
referred to c6anges in-program rather than in changes in
objectives.
12. The Board members were very divided on what they believed .
were consistencies in Project-ACT objectives. (Program)
13. The Board members were very divided on what they believed
changed in Project ACT objectives. (Program)
14. The Board members were extremely inconsistent in what they
believed were the key decisions of Project ACT and in who -
they believed was responsible for such decisions.
'Administrator and supervisor]
1: Administrators and supervisors were very consistent in the
high ratings given to _Project ACT based on positive changes
that' occurred, in the participant whom they supervised.
2. Participants were judged to have more ability as an adult
educator,to be more self-directed, more self-confident,
to be more motivated for professional_improvement and to
be better able to help their students after Project'ACT
-experiences.
3. Participants shared what they gained from participation in
Project ACT with other staff in their school.
102
a
O
96
4. There was limited. evidence of school staff other than ACT
participants going directly to Project ACT for professional
help.
5. Administrators and supervisors. saw Project ACT providing
long range benefits to their school.
6. Administrators and supervisors had very limited information
about Project ACT in advance,of one of their staff partici--
pating in it and they didn't believe that they had enough
. information.
7. Administrators and supervisors didn't know how much time-the
participant from their school Would devote to Project ACT
nor did they believe the participant knew.
8. Administrators and supervisors believed that travel out of
their state by participants is helpful both to the partici-
pant and 'to their school.
9. Administrators and supervisors have heard practically no
solid complaints about Project ACT from the participants.
10. Most would be willing to have their school pay a users
fee for Project ACtmaterials.,
11. Most are positive about time off of the job for participants
to participate in ACT and most would encourage-other staff
to participate.
12. Most administrators and supervisors, in spite of their
positive regard for the overall project, knew very little
about the RRts, the ITPs and PARIS.
103
'Other findin'gsl
13. Administrators and supervisors judged the most meaningful\ \
aspect of the entire program to be the exposure of the
participant to new ideas and to other groups of adult
,educators.
,14. Administrators and supervisors believed that participants
could be available thirteen (13) days (mean) per year to
help teachers and administrators in oth r states.
15. All but one of the administrators and supervisors classify
the participant from their school as a real professionalO
educator.
16. According to administrators and supervisors Project ACT
participants, with few exceptions, were very good adult
educators when they were selected for the Project and thea.
'Project aided in their growth as a professional.
1. Advisory boards)
a. There is no consistency in the organization of advisory
boards throughout Region VIII.
/ b. The organization of State Strategy Boards and-Locals,
/ ,,, Sounding Boards was not achieved by Project ACT.
/
/2.
a. Participants rated the ITPs of considerably more value
to theMselves than the RRTs and of more value to
. participants in their programs. The rating as to value
to other adult educatcirs, was but slightly higher for
the ITPs.
ITPs and RRTs
104.
97
./
3.
98
b. Respondents identified many positive elements of their
participation in ITPs and RRTs including knowledge
learned; sharing outcomes, help to their students,
use of PARIS, and professional sharing with others.
c. ITP participants rated consultation with selected resource
persons, use of PARIS and conferences and workshops to be
most value to their growth as adult educators.
d. RRT participants rated the preparation for team pre-
sentations, conferences and workshops and giving team
presentations as of. most value to their growth as adult
educatdrs.
(ACT staff
a. A comprehensive body of reference materials have been
gathered, and used in the.Resource Center and through
the PARIS system.
b. The use of ITPs developed a positive response from
participants and from potential users of the concept
beyond Project ACT.
c. Staff have observed positive professional growth in
most participants.
d. The RRTs are likely to continue regional staff
development through a non-profit association.
e. ITP participants and RR Team members are a very
competent and professional group of adult educators.
f. The Policy Board was a heterOgeneous group which made
few policy decisions, resisted staff independence, did
105
4.
5.
99
not wish to share power and provided limited leadership
in a number of states for the concept of a regional con-
sortium.
g. There were major communication problems within the
Project such as: between ITPs and Policy Board,
between central staff and new participants, and in
the way that ITPs related differently to Policy Board
and central staff thus having messages that carried
different interpretations.
0
h. There is a professional provincialism among the states
of the Region.
i. Project ACT was too short (three years) for a viable
test of a regional staff development model.
j. Peoject ACT was loosely administered.
pupplemental funding]
a. Limited supplemental funding data were available at
the Project ACT central office.
b. Supplemental funding from the various states lacked
consistency and planning.
c." There Was no regional criterion for supplemental
funding pol icy.
(19T4 External Evaluation -lollow-up of recdMmendationsj
a. Of the nine recommendations one was pursued in orderly
fashion when'a procedure was developed and followed
to inform legislative and educational leaders of the
goals and program of Project ACT.
10G
a
100
b. A second recommendationto plan for follow-up after
June 30, 1975 was purs4d by ACT staff and Policy'
. Board with results showing that at most, only three
of the six states may jerin in coordination oestaff
development programs.afier June 30., 1975. In addition,
a non-profit organization covering all six states was
organized outside of the formal structure of Project
ACT by'its participan's to carry out the long range
objectives of the Project.
c. On the other seven recommendations the Policy Board
took no action.
O. Participants in Project ACT have attempted to carry
out four of the recommendations either within ACT or
'outside of it. /These include their attempt to get
Policy Board members on the RR Teams, involving
additional university staff, on the RR Teams, con-
ferring with their own colleges and universities
to obtaid graduate credit for ITPs, and developing
a regional staff development structure covering all
six states of Region VIII.
107
1.1111.111111.1.11RINIMPTFITIRIMMMIRMWMPWIMMIMIMMIARMOTTPT9RITI,V,PM.7.,11111....IMI.PPIRl API WHirm. arum %VT Whin iv If Wi wra. 'YMYY.VIllerahAYAVIIVVVVVVelY. VnY YVV.Y.IMOYI,IPPPIVVY1I'a
4a.
Conclusions'
NIAM11,-,
101
The findings of this evaluation as they relate to the objectives
and program of Project ACT lead to a nwnber_of conclusions about.the
Project:about staff defelopment needs and about the future of adult
education in USOE Region VIII. The conclusions are:
1. Three years was not sufficient to adequately demonstrate
and test the. Project ACT Model of Regional Staff Develop-
ment. One year of preparation before starting a projecta
of this type is essential. ;
2.- The structure and composition of the Policy Board was the
most inflexible component of Project ACT.,
3. Tie PrOject ACT Policy Board developed no unity of purpose
nor homogeneous perception of the program's operation.
4. Participants involved in Individual Training Programs and
on RegionalResource Teams were among the most professional
adult educators in each state.
5. The selection of competent individuals to. participate in
Project ACT Was a guarantee of individual success and a
challenge to the competencies of the Policy Board.
6. The ITP model was demonstrated as an effective:multi-
dimensional training system.
7. Participants were not well informed about the activities
that were expected of them in carrying through on their
irldOidual program or team membership.
k
Y
P
8. Neither pafticipants.oritheir administrators knew how
much professional and/or personal time Project ACT
would require of the participants.
9. Administrators and supervisors had a high regard for
Project ACT in regard to both its short range and long
range outcomes.
10. The responsibility of participants in the Project to
share outcomes with others in their own schools was
never established.
11. Project ACT failed in its efforts to organize State
Strategy Boards and Local Sounding Boards in Region
102,
z
VIII.
12. The Policy Board and Project ACT staff failed to carry
out most of the recommendations made in the 1974
external evaluation.
13. The communication of the concept of the ACT,Model and of
information about Project ACT to other than the pr6ject
family (Policy Board, Participants, Staff) was limited.
14. State Directors in three of the six states were not con-
vinced that a regional consortium for staff development..
was needed.
15. The dedication to the staff development concept achieved
by participants< was ,greater thwthat achieved by the
Policy -Board and thus the leadership for a regional
consortium was°taken by participants.
109
103
Hypotheses needing further study
Several of the conclusions are based on findings that show a lack
of unity and focus on the part of Project ACT's Policy Board. Without ,
making an apology for them it should be understood that theyhad a
difficult assignment. They represented very diverse states in popu,
lation (Colorado vs. North Dakota), in cultural heritage (Utah vs.
Montana), in geography (Wyoming vs. North Dakota), and in financial
resources (Colorado vs. Wyoming). Witlyminor exceptions.Aey_ame
from states which historically had only limited public school pro-
grams for adults. The educational and administrative responsibilities
of a number of board members froM both universities and state depart-
ments of edUcation were less on adult education than on other matters.
As a group -they were not professional'aduft educatori and any.
insecurity and hesitency to act Which they might have had can be
understood.
It is by hindsightthat the following-hypotheses arepresented.
Most relate to problems of the Policy Board. If the first hypothesis
had beewrecognized in the planning and proposal Writing stage-of the,
project and then carried out at the beginning of the first contra*
year,* then, the other hypotheses may never have been,suggested by the
data.gathered in this external evaluatiOn.
`as*This assumes an oversight in the writing of the original proposal.'0r, if not an oversight, perhaps a real'i'stic assumption by the propoSalWriters that the project would not have been federally funded if it wereadmitted that the proposed Policy.Board needed an educational program ofits own and a $50,000 grant to accomplish it. This could have been themost efficient use of funds in the entire project.
110. r
104
. A "crash" in-service program on adult education and boards- -
manship for the newly selected Policy Board in 1972 would
have built unity, understanding and a base for positive
action on policy that would have provided a much more solid
base from which to develop and test the Project ACT Model
of Adult Staff Development in USOE Region VIII. (Managers
and policy makers of a staff development project in adult
education should be the very first to recognize the need
for continued learning.)
---.27--The-work-pr4orit-i-es of the-Policy- Board_were such that
Project ACT was low on the list of priorities and thus
did not get sufficient nor consistent attention.
3_ Project ACT is structured on a fart more effective staff
development model than the Policy Board believed it to
be.
4. The "six state institutional trainer system" proposed
could not be carried out because the State Directors
would not allocate matching fUnds fOr this portion of
the project during the first year.
5. The closer one is to the action of Project ACT the more
\ ipositive is the response to the concept.
. First - Participants
\\ Second - Administrators and supervisorsof the participants
Third - Project ACT central stafft
Fourth - Policy Board\..
OS°
105
6. The more a state needs outside input for staff development,
the less it is desired by Policy Board members.
7. The essential parts. of a federal project should never be
left to the whims of a state authority who is responsible
foralloCating matching funds.,
8. In a Regional Project, if the states and the Regional
Policy Board fail to act and if there is a competent and
energetic staff at the central office, then this staff
will move ih to fill this vacuum'by developing its own
programs.
12
I
0
106,
What can be
On Friday and Saturday, May 1 and 2, 1975, a group of interested
Project ACT participants, staff, and Policy Board member's gathered in
Denver for a Regional Adult Staff Development Conference.---The group
tookipositive steps to ensure that an as yet unnamed "Trainer Organi-
zation"--woUld be formed to maintainan'6 advance some of the main
activities begun in the Project---An Interim Committee was elected."*
This "TrainersOrganizatioe for the Region can be for real. If
it is and if it operates with dedicated volunteers and a cohesive
unified Board of Diredtors, the goals of Project ACT may be reached.
The seeds planted in the hearts and minds of ACT participants during
its three years of operation can grow, flourish and change the face
of adult education in RegionNIII.
*Fran a Memorandum dated May 15, 1975 and sent by the InterimCommittee to persons connected in some way with Project ACT.
.113